Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Why Not Engage the Evidence for Historicity?


Recommended Posts

9 hours 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. 

How many times have I asked you not to characterize my opinions?

You have never ever gotten one right.

Not one not ever. And this is no exception.

The assertion that the only way we can know anything is through the spirit is itself absurd. I have never said that nor do I think that.

I am really just sick and tired of your distortions.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
9 hours 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? 

Just a quick reply that I really want to spend some time on this but haven't had the time yet today. I will definitely get back to you. Great post with great questions.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Out of curiosity, why Sean Carroll instead of say Roger Penrose or some figure like say Gerald Cleaver who is Christian? There are a fair number of Christians who are well known physicists after all. I assume you'll say that all of those who don't adopt a nominalist atheism like Carroll are compartmentalizing. Just a suggestion, but maybe what's empirically establishable in science isn't as big as you think and questions on topics like atheism actually go beyond science. It's just that you've picked some scientists who adopt such beliefs over others as a way to justify your own beliefs while dismissing those who view things differently.

I picked Sean Carroll because I recently read that book.

People can and do believe whatever they want. But as an example of my approach, as far as I'm aware there aren't any really great reasons to believe in dualism, but there are in fact very good reasons not to believe in dualism. I recall reading on a blog somewhere about an account where somebody had an NDE and saw himself floating above his bed, looking down at the people in the hospital room, with his body lying in the bed. This was chalked up as strong evidence in dualism. But if you look at it closely, it raises more questions than it answers. What does it mean to "see" when you are hovering above a bed but don't have eyes? Without physical eyes, how do you gather and focus photons onto a retina that then sends electrical signals to the brain? If your alleged "spiritual eyes" were gathering light molecules, wouldn't we be able to detect that some of the light was sending energy elsewhere? So what is going on? What is the coherent theory for what it means to see without eyes? And if your spirit does the actual thinking, what is the purpose of your brain? And when your brain gets damaged by, say, Alzheimer's disease, why would that effect your spirit's ability to think? And how could something immaterial like a spirit possibly effect the motions of something material? Quoting Carroll:

"To address this issue seriously, we wouldn’t necessarily need to have a “Soul Theory” that is as rigorous and well developed as the Core Theory of physics. We would, however, need to be specific and quantitative about how the Core Theory could possibly be changed. There needs to be a way that 'soul stuff' interacts with the fields of which we are made—with electrons, or photons, or something. Do those interactions satisfy conservation of energy, momentum, and electric charge? Does matter interact back on the soul, or is the principle of action and reaction violated? Is there 'virtual soul stuff' as well as 'real soul stuff,' and do quantum fluctuations of soul stuff affect the measurable properties of ordinary particles? Or does the soul stuff not interact directly with particles, and merely affect the quantum probabilities associated with measurement outcomes? Is the soul a kind of 'hidden variable' playing an important role in quantum ontology?

 
"If you want to be a dualist and believe in an immaterial soul that plays any role whatsoever in who we are as human beings, these questions are not optional. We’re not rigging the game by demanding a full-blown mathematical theory of the soul itself; we’re simply asking how the soul is supposed to affect the mathematical theory of the quantum fields that we already have."
(Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (pp. 215-216). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.)

So for me, if a scientist says that he believes in souls and in the resurrection and whatever else, it's really hard to believe he is dealing with the evidence in a coherent, comprehensive way. I try to challenge my views and consider the opinions of people who think there is evidence of stuff I don't believe in. And the honest truth is that when I left Mormonism 20 years ago, I wanted to find a cool, new religion. I wanted to become a Buddhist or a Christian or a hipster New-Age something. But I was looking for what was real, and tragically ended up with nothing more than atheism (in the way atheists use the term--merely lacking a positive belief in God).

 

Quote

Now I'd certainly agree that among scientists atheism is far more common than in society at large. But it's not quite as universal as you seem to believe. (If you're interested I'd written on the topic over at my old blog a few years back)

One of my favorite subjects are behavioral economics, cognitive biases, and how otherwise smart people believe things that aren't fully rational. One of the very smartest people I've ever had the opportunity to spend some time with talking about deep things was a young-earth creationist (the late Melvin Cook). Smac would likely use this example as proof that "reasonable people can disagree." To me, it is an example of how very intelligent people can believe incongruent things, despite their intelligence.

 

Quote

I think you're conflating what's science with what's ontology. Comments like the above suggest a commitment to scientism which is itself a pretty philosophically suspect position. If you're interested, I'd suggest some articles on scientism. I rather like this short one by philosopher of science Massimo Piugliucci (himself an atheist). "The Problem with Scientism

I'm pretty comfortable with my belief structure. I would call myself a "poetic naturalist", following the cue of Carroll.

 

Quote

There's nothing wrong with being an atheist or agnostic. However I think we should be pretty careful about what science does or does not say. Thus far science can't really even say what a mind is let alone its ontological nature. It can't establish whether God exists (even if some scientists have strong opinions on the subject). And so forth.

I agree, science can't at this point say what mind is (I find that honest; it's better to say "I don't know" when you don't). But at the same time, it can preclude some religious claims of the mind. And science can tell us something about the likelihood of the hypothesis of there being a historical Adam who was the father of all living people and the direct, literal son of a space traveler from a planet orbiting the star Kolob. There are some big questions science cannot answer. But admitting that seems better than just making something up without evidence because you want an answer.

 

Quote

I think this conflates two senses. That is our current understanding of things with what our eventual understanding will be. Mormons are fallibilists and recognize "we see through a glass darkly." One needn't read much history to recognize that theology (as understanding) changes. What critics want to do is take normative understanding - often determined by frequently out of date manuals - and say that's the only Mormonism that counts. Put it an other way, imagine an Evangelical skeptic turning to old high school manuals about science and saying that's science. We (or at least anyone with an experience with real science and horrible school texts) would laugh at such an idea. If the person then said something along the way of what could science mean if it's not what's in the manuals then we'd really know they were rather confused on the topic. It's just that some want religion to be a set of infallible dogmas rather than a set of practices that lead to evolving views. They don't realize that they're just as confused. 

That's a totally fair point. By no means did I mean to suggest I'm an authority on what you believe or what real Mormonism is. I recognize that when growing up, I was heavily influenced by some pretty fundamentalist seminary teachers who thought that Bruce R. McConkie knew what he was talking about. It was hammered into my head that the "three pillars of eternity" were the creation, the fall, and the atonement and that the settled truth of those things was the way Joseph Fielding Smith said. If that classic understanding of the creation and the fall is thrown under the bus that's great, but it also calls into question what the atonement actually means. If there is a battle going on between the revealed word of God and the philosophies of men, it seems that the only place further light and knowledge are being received is on the side of the philosophies of men, and that the only progress the church is making is relaxing its position on some things and saying that things that were once considered established doctrine are now merely dated opinions. That's a move in the right direction, sure. But when Mormon and science converge, will there be any Mormonism left?

 

Quote

Now what usually happens in these sorts of discussions is that a person replies, well we just mean well established science - that's what you should believe. But of course anyone working in science recognizes that by definition to pose a new theory one has to go beyond what's acceptable science. So that definition can't work. No one who thinks about science carefully thinks we know it all. 

The people I associate with readily admit all this. Science doesn't have all the answers, but it might have more answers than some people give it credit for. And if it doesn't have answers, it is often better to admit it than to make something up. Or if you do make something up, at least admit that is what you are doing.

 

Quote

I think you'll find that the people who actually work on the Church's correlated materials are themselves most aware of their limits. Further, one doesn't have to be terribly old to notice that the materials change with time. 

If you just mean issues of evolutionary history and flood, I'd agree. I think the correlated material in those cases is wrong. If you mean more than that then I suspect you're confused about what science is. (History is in the humanities and isn't a science) But heaven knows I'll agree with you that there's been some bad history in correlated materials as well. So what?

I'm not sure what you are talking about regarding how history is classified. I would consider questions like whether the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript to be within the purview of science. But then again, I readily admit I am confused about many things.

Which brings us back to so what? If I recall, my original point had to do with the fact that there is so much highly unlikely baggage associated with Mormonism and the Book of Mormon that it's hard to get excited about the evidence that's been offered that it's true. When you weigh all the evidence--not just the 10 items in the OP--it really isn't a close thing.

But on the other hand, if Mormonism works for somebody as a religious framework for life that's great. I have no argument with that. Just don't claim that scholars should jump out of their chairs and have breakout sessions in academic conferences because Hebrew word plays in the Book of Mormon are evidence for how it is an accurate translation of an authentic Mayan manuscript that was written on gold plates and buried in a hill in New York.

Edited by Analytics
Link to comment
1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I would be interested to see your response to my comment about your "bag of quarters" analogy.  Do you agree that if the quarter I gave you is indistinguishable from other quarters, it is meaningless as evidence?

Yes.  That is, I think, why Hamblin faulted Jenkins.  His request for "Book of Mormon" artifacts is "meaningless" because there is presently no way to meaningfully identify any particular artifact as "Nephite" or "Lamanite" (or "Jaredite" or "Mulekite," for that matter).

I think this is why LDS scholars generally don't spend much time discussing archaeological "evidence" for the Book of Mormon.  It may well be right in front of our noses, but we presently lack the ability to discern that.  So we need to look elsewhere for other types of evidence.  Textual evidences, for example (Hebraisms, chiasmus, fitting etymologies for things like "Alma" and "sheum" that Joseph Smith couldn't have known about etc.).  Or Nahom.  Or Royal Skousen's Critical Text project.  And so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  That is, I think, why Hamblin faulted Jenkins.  His request for "Book of Mormon" artifacts is "meaningless" because there is presently no way to meaningfully identify any particular artifact as "Nephite" or "Lamanite" (or "Jaredite" or "Mulekite," for that matter).

I think this is why LDS scholars generally don't spend much time discussing archaeological "evidence" for the Book of Mormon.  It may well be right in front of our noses, but we presently lack the ability to discern that.  So we need to look elsewhere for other types of evidence.  Textual evidences, for example (Hebraisms, chiasmus, fitting etymologies for things like "Alma" and "sheum" that Joseph Smith couldn't have known about etc.).  Or Nahom.  Or Royal Skousen's Critical Text project.  And so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is not really a reply to this post, but I am wondering on how we are doing and getting James Faulconer's comments on the Book of Mormon historical evidence.

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

How many times have I asked you not to characterize my opinions?

You have never ever gotten one right.

Not one not ever. And this is no exception.

The assertion that the only way we can know anything is through the spirit is itself absurd. I have never said that nor do I think that.

I am really just sick and tired of your distortions.

I give up. I’ve tried to understand your position but obviously haven’t grasped it. I’m guessing I never will. 

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Everyone in the debate accepts that there is no supporting inscriptional data--at least not verifying the names of Book of Mormon people or places. However, it's not "terrible" evidence; it's just non-evidence. If LDS scholars were claiming to have valid inscriptional data that supported the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and if that claim was disputed by non-LDS scholars, that would be one thing. Yet that is not what is happening. Moreover, critics can't logically use the lack of inscriptional evidence as counter evidence because most pre-Classic inscriptions still can't be deciphered. So the problem isn't even that there is a lack of evidence. The problem is that no one can decipher most of the evidence that we have. 

The main problem with Jenkins' whole approach was that archaeologists rely on other data, besides inscriptions, all of the time. Jenkins arbitrarily excluded many other types of data that would normally count as valid evidence in this broad field of research. The Book of Mormon has lots of these other types of valid evidences, so I'm really not seeing the problem here. Jenkins refused to engage these other evidences, and so have virtually all other non-LDS Mesoamerican scholars. These evidences apparently are just "not good because they are not good."

 

Jenkins point wasn't to arbitrarily exclude these other type of data out of bias or laziness or whatever. He wasn't being arbitrary. His underlying point was that before we can have a discussion about the academic field of ancient Book of Mormon studies, that field has to actually exist. There has to be a critical mass of data to serve as a groundwork of what it is we are talking about. Decent archeological evidence was just a single example of what would serve as that critical mass of evidence. Perhaps something else could. If Hamblin could have shown that "ancient Book of Mormon studies" was a recognized academic field anywhere--even at BYU--he would have won the larger point.

 

Link to comment

John Williams

How can an experience be both "ineffable" and "interpreted"?

It's a astounding that you would make such a contradiction.

Interpretations are of necessity descriptions.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I give up. 

Please do.

I think the problem is you are very sloppy in using language.

I try to speak precisely and you turn it into stew.

One example is that the ineffable can be described or interpreted.

Please explain how an itch is an interpretation.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
Just now, mfbukowski said:

John Williams

How can an experience be both "ineffable" and "interpreted"?

It's a astounding that you would make such a contradiction.

Interpretations are of necessity descriptions.

I don’t see the contradiction. I may not be able to say in words something (ineffable), but I know what it means (interpretation). 

Never mind, though. We are likely never going to understand each other. I can live with that. Carry on. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Please do.

I think the problem is you are very sloppy in using language.

I try to speak precisely and you turn it into stew.

One example is that the ineffable can be described or interpreted.

I think we have a different understanding of the linguistic act. What you see as sloppy I see as being as precise as possible. I can live with your disapproval. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm at a bit of a loss as to what you mean. I could offer any number of examples of huge discrepancies between what modern, mainstream science tells us and traditional Mormon doctrine. Examples could include the existence and nature of God, Jesus and the Resurrection, communication from the Holy Ghost, the idea that we have a spirit (i.e. mind-body dualism), the idea that Adam existed and was the literal child of God, death before the Fall, etc. I could go into detail about these things, .........................................

I like modern mainstream science, and you evidently do too.  Where we are at loggerheads is in your concept of "traditional Mormon doctrine," which may be something related to that book by the late Bruce R. McConkie.  It might be well to consider for a  moment that he was not a theologian, and that some key beliefs he had turned out to be completely false.  Worse yet, you appear to assume that "traditional Mormon doctrine" does not significantly differ from normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim belief.  If so, then of course you might indeed have something meaningful to say about "the existence and nature of God, Jesus and the Resurrection, communication from the Holy Ghost, the idea that we have a spirit," etc., since the normative (non-Mormon) beliefs about those things are so clearly supernaturalistic and absurd.  Mainstream religion does rightly take a beating from secularists for the nonsensical basis for their beliefs.  And many Mormons (who come from such a normative religious world anyhow) not surprisingly accept those norms.  So do the non-Mormon critics of Mormonism.  In other words, a straw man dominates the discussion.  I cited some sources which you might want to consider -- to no effect.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Perhaps a way to understand what I'm getting at is to read a book like The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself by Sean Carroll, and compare that view of the world taught in the correlated church manuals. Paraphrasing Joseph Fielding McConkie, the theories of science are not compatible with the doctrines of the Church. You can tug, twist, contort, and sell your birthright, but you cannot overcome the irreconcilable differences between the theories of science and the doctrines of the Church (compare to Joseph Fielding McConkie, Answers: Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1998),  page 158, where he addresses the question, " Is the theory of evolution compatible with the doctrine of the Fall?")

What would we expect the late Joseph Fielding McConkie to say?  Like his father, he was neither theologian or scientist, and his commentary does in no sense constitute canonical Mormon doctrine.  There is a formal, substantive question here about the actual content and nature of Mormon beliefs, and I would recommend that you go back and begin with Sterling McMurrin's early books on the subject (his classic two-volumes-in-one available from Signature Books, the Philosophical Foundations of Mormon Theology, and his Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion)-  Without that elementary understanding, you will continue to misunderstand the nature of this discussion.  The books are very short and well written.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

If you strictly believed normative science, you would be an atheist and your beliefs would be like Sean Carroll's. If you agree that Carroll is accurately representing mainstream normative science and agree with the correlated lesson manuals about what the Church teaches, you have two different pictures of the world in two different paradigms--two different internally coherent compartments in your brain. At that point you can leave it there without giving it a second thought, or you can try to harmonize the two, or you can speculate and put the differences on a shelf.

Dismissing what is taught in the Church's correlated materials as being narrow and superficial and something that doesn't come to terms with "actual LDS theology" seems disingenuous. Don't get me wrong--I don't believe the narrow and superficial teachings, and if you and I are on the same page there that is great. But if we can't turn to the Church's correlated manuals to get a handle on "actual LDS theology", what does that phrase even mean?

If the conversation can only proceed based on non-canonical correlated LDS manuals, the likelihood of our having a real discussion is pretty slim.  Slim to none.  Now, of course, atheists are generally less open-mined than are believers (Greg Wilford, “Atheists are less open-minded than religious people, study claims,” Independent, July 2, 2017, online at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/atheists-agnostic-religion-close-minded-tolerant-catholics-uk-france-spain-study-belgium-catholic-a7819221.html  ), which makes it even less likely that we can communicate effectively.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

By no means did I mean to pick on Clark Goble to the exclusion of you, Bukowski, Givens, et al. All I intended to do was point out that traditional, correlated Mormon thought is at odds with mainstream science. That is absolutely true. Regarding your assertion that contorted and incoherent belief systems are not likely to survive well over time is unsupported by the evidence. There are so many cognitive biases that are hardwired into our brains, it is clear that they must in fact have survival advantages

Ancient Egyptian religion did not survive, nor did the religions of Greece and Rome.  Contorted and incoherent belief systems are in fact a bar to progress in science and to any system of lifeways which aid in the survival of a culture.  Anthropologists provide case studies of cultures in which they show how a culture has successfully adapted to its environment, and they examine both the genetic (inborn) as well as the learned components of systems of dynamic adjustment.  You appear to think that it is all a crap shoot, and that contorted and incoherent beliefs are so normal and ever-present that they cannot be overcome.  Tell that to Galileo, who would have loved to be in an open society.  It can make a huge difference.  The rise and fall of entire civilizations has been dependent upon being free from contorted and incoherent thought.

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think we have a different understanding of the linguistic act. What you see as sloppy I see as being as precise as possible. I can live with your disapproval. 

Yeah, it must be ineffable I guess.

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Jenkins point wasn't to arbitrarily exclude these other type of data out of bias or laziness or whatever. He wasn't being arbitrary.

Was his request arbitrary?  No.  Facile and unreasonable?  Yes.

41 minutes ago, Analytics said:

His underlying point was that before we can have a discussion about the academic field of ancient Book of Mormon studies, that field has to actually exist.

The topic was broader than that.  The topic was studying the Book of Mormon an ancient document at all.  That can be done (and is being done) without the necessity of there being an endowed chair for it at some university.

41 minutes ago, Analytics said:

There has to be a critical mass of data to serve as a groundwork of what it is we are talking about. Decent archeological evidence was just a single example of what would serve as that critical mass of evidence.

Not buying it.  There are mounds of substantive LDS scholarship on the Book of Mormon.  There are mounds of data about Mesoamerica.  The question is whether the former can feasibly be construed as fitting in as part of the latter.

LDS scholars have been working on this sort of thing for many decades now.  There is plenty of stuff out there that could be discussed.  And yet...

41 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Perhaps something else could. If Hamblin could have shown that "ancient Book of Mormon studies" was a recognized academic field anywhere--even at BYU--he would have won the larger point.

I'm not at all persuaded that scholarship doesn't exist until and unless there is a formally "recognized academic field" specifically tailored to "Book of Mormon Studies"

Hamblin address this too, by the way.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I like modern mainstream science, and you evidently do too.  Where we are at loggerheads is in your concept of "traditional Mormon doctrine," which may be something related to that book by the late Bruce R. McConkie.  It might be well to consider for a  moment that he was not a theologian, and that some key beliefs he had turned out to be completely false.  Worse yet, you appear to assume that "traditional Mormon doctrine" does not significantly differ from normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim belief.  If so, then of course you might indeed have something meaningful to say about "the existence and nature of God, Jesus and the Resurrection, communication from the Holy Ghost, the idea that we have a spirit," etc., since the normative (non-Mormon) beliefs about those things are so clearly supernaturalistic and absurd.  Mainstream religion does rightly take a beating from secularists for the nonsensical basis for their beliefs.  And many Mormons (who come from such a normative religious world anyhow) not surprisingly accept those norms.  So do the non-Mormon critics of Mormonism.  In other words, a straw man dominates the discussion.  I cited some sources which you might want to consider -- to no effect.

What would we expect the late Joseph Fielding McConkie to say?  Like his father, he was neither theologian or scientist, and his commentary does in no sense constitute canonical Mormon doctrine.  There is a formal, substantive question here about the actual content and nature of Mormon beliefs, and I would recommend that you go back and begin with Sterling McMurrin's early books on the subject (his classic two-volumes-in-one available from Signature Books, the Philosophical Foundations of Mormon Theology, and his Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion)-  Without that elementary understanding, you will continue to misunderstand the nature of this discussion.  The books are very short and well written.

If the conversation can only proceed based on non-canonical correlated LDS manuals, the likelihood of our having a real discussion is pretty slim.  Slim to none.  Now, of course, atheists are generally less open-mined than are believers (Greg Wilford, “Atheists are less open-minded than religious people, study claims,” Independent, July 2, 2017, online at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/atheists-agnostic-religion-close-minded-tolerant-catholics-uk-france-spain-study-belgium-catholic-a7819221.html  ), which makes it even less likely that we can communicate effectively.

Ancient Egyptian religion did not survive, nor did the religions of Greece and Rome.  Contorted and incoherent belief systems are in fact a bar to progress in science and to any system of lifeways which aid in the survival of a culture.  Anthropologists provide case studies of cultures in which they show how a culture has successfully adapted to its environment, and they examine both the genetic (inborn) as well as the learned components of systems of dynamic adjustment.  You appear to think that it is all a crap shoot, and that contorted and incoherent beliefs are so normal and ever-present that they cannot be overcome.  Tell that to Galileo, who would have loved to be in an open society.  It can make a huge difference.  The rise and fall of entire civilizations has been dependent upon being free from contorted and incoherent thought.

McMurrin is the first I am aware of who saw Mormonism as Pragmatism, though I don't recall him saying that explicitly.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, StevenJetts said:

and where can I learn more about those three movements you listed?

There's a lot of material that isn't easy to track down, if you are interested I could share via DM. Here are some decent places to start for the traditions I've mentioned above:

Sons of Moses: The narreme about the Jews at the edge of the world
Rechabites/Rahmans: Two eastern Christian sources on Medieval Nusantara
Bnei Israel: The star in the east : a sermon preached for the benefit of the Society for Missions to Africa and the East
Karen/Kayin: Ariya and the Golden Book: A Millenarian Buddhist Sect Among the Karen

But most relevant to our discussions about Book of Mormon historicity would be:

Margaret Barker: What Did King Josiah Reform?

Edited by Rajah Manchou
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is plenty of stuff out there that could be discussed. And yet...

Reminds me of the story told by Isaac Hale about Martin Harris seeking evidence of the existence of the golden plates:

"Martin Harris informed me that he must have a greater witness, and said that he had talked with Joseph about it - Joseph informed him that he could not, or durst not show him the plates, but that he (Joseph) would go into the woods where the Book of Plates was, and that after he came back, Harris should follow his track in the snow, and find the Book, and examine it for himself. Harris informed me afterwards, that he followed Smith's directions, and could not find the Plates, and was still dissatisfied."

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I like modern mainstream science, and you evidently do too.  Where we are at loggerheads is in your concept of "traditional Mormon doctrine," which may be something related to that book by the late Bruce R. McConkie.  It might be well to consider for a  moment that he was not a theologian, and that some key beliefs he had turned out to be completely false.

I'm glad we agree about something.

But really, my point doesn't rely on a specific conception of Mormonism. Do you belive people have spirits? That God exists? That He has godlike powers?  Has a body of flesh and bones that looks like ours? Is our ancestor? That God is from a different planet? That he visited Joseph Smith in 1820? That Jesus Christ was ressurected? That we will be ressurected? That Adam existed? That God communicates to us through the Holy Ghost?

I'm sure that it's possible to make Mormonism abstract enough and merely symbolic so that there are no discrepencies with science. But to the extent these various beliefs are well-defined, in general they are going to contradict science. If you rely deny that, pick a Mormon belief from the list above, define specifically what you mean by that belief, and we can have a frank discussion about whether it is compatible with science.

 

43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What would we expect the late Joseph Fielding McConkie to say?  Like his father, he was neither theologian or scientist, and his commentary does in no sense constitute canonical Mormon doctrine.  There is a formal, substantive question here about the actual content and nature of Mormon beliefs, and I would recommend that you go back and begin with Sterling McMurrin's early books on the subject (his classic two-volumes-in-one available from Signature Books, the Philosophical Foundations of Mormon Theology, and his Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion)-  Without that elementary understanding, you will continue to misunderstand the nature of this discussion.  The books are very short and well written.

I'll make a deal with you. I'll read those books if you read The Big Picture by Sean Carroll. He does a great job of explaining with some authority what science knows and why we have good reason to doubt things like the proposition we have spirits.

 

43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If the conversation can only proceed based on non-canonical correlated LDS manuals, the likelihood of our having a real discussion is pretty slim.  Slim to none.

So, we agree that the truth contradicts what the lesson manuals say. We are making progress!

 

43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Ancient Egyptian religion did not survive, nor did the religions of Greece and Rome.

Neither did the religion of Bruce R. McConkie, apparently.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Was his request arbitrary?  No.  Facile and unreasonable?  Yes.

The topic was broader than that.  The topic was studying the Book of Mormon an ancient document at all.  That can be done (and is being done) without the necessity of there being an endowed chair for it at some university.

Stepping all the way back, Jenkins made a series of posts about the differences between mainstream and fringe scholarship. He said:

"Blogging on any religious topic invites wacky comments and responses. As one example of many, I had a commenter not long ago who asserted that most of what Christians believed about their origins was utterly wrong. Way back in the third century BC, he said, the cult of the Egyptian god Serapis prefigured most features of Christianity, including the name: even at that very early date, his followers were allegedly called “Christians.” Christianity, in fact, was a myth built on that older Egyptian religion. That whole Serapis/Christ nonsense is widespread around the Internet, with quite a few Youtube contributions. Just Google “Christos Ptolemy Serapis” and see how many rabbit holes you vanish into. In some manifestations, not all, it gets into weird Afrocentric and anti-Jewish mythologies.

"I challenged the original poster by asking how many real books or sources he could cite to support this idea, not counting self-published stuff, and answer came there none. These days, you can find that information quite easily from Amazon, besides library catalogues and journal databases. My argument was simple. An idea or theory does not deserve to be taken seriously unless and until it acquires at least some coverage by accredited experts in the field. That might take the form of published books with major presses, whether trade or academic, or in reputable academic journals.

"Scholarship is what scholars do, and if they don’t do it, it’s not scholarship.

"I am stealing  that phrase from the maxim that “Science is what scientists do,” which courts have used to separate junk science from the real McCoy. As a trial judge declared in the important 1982 case of McLean v Arkansas, “Their [scientists’] work is published and subject to review and testing by their peers. The journals for publication are both numerous and varied.” If something claiming to be science appears in none of these outlets, then, that tells you it is an impostor. Exactly the same principles apply to social science disciplines such as history, although there, books from major presses count as much or more as do journal articles."

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/05/outliers-and-iconoclasts/

That is Jenkin's original point, of which ancient Book of Mormon history was an example.

 

Quote

Not buying it.  There are mounds of substantive LDS scholarship on the Book of Mormon.

But the issue is whether this scholarship is mainstream, real scholarship or fringe scholarship. His point is that Mormon apologists aren't the only ones who believe wakey things and have conspiracy theories about why mainstream scholars ignore them. It is a normal pattern that he is examining. Claiming that Book of Mormon scholarship is excellent and mainstream scholars ignore it out of bias just proves that they fit the pattern he is talking about.

Edited by Analytics
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I picked Sean Carroll because I recently read that book.

So if you'd just read Roger Penrose or Freeman Dyson you'd have proposed that being a proper scientist entails a bit more metaphysical adventurism? (Although of course there's no shortage of physicists who think Carroll's string theory is nothing more than metaphysics and unscientific - I'm much more open to that sort of work but then I have no trouble with metaphysics)

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

But as an example of my approach, as far as I'm aware there aren't any really great reasons to believe in dualism, but there are in fact very good reasons not to believe in dualism.

You need to read more philosophy. I don't accept dualism but it's simply not true that there's no arguments for other ontologies of mind. Indeed there's a growing view among many that materialism of the sort Carroll espouses is incoherent. Roger Penrose is a platonist and his ontology is the inverse of the Von Neumann view of the collapse of the wave function. Penrose thinks that mind simply is this collapse. While that's mainly a metaphysical conception (outlined in his book The Emperor's New Mind) he has tried to make it more empirical by figuring out how quantum phenomena could possibly work in the brain. His idea, with a surprising amount of empiricism behind it, is that microtubulars in neurons can act like quantum computers. That of course isn't dualism but it is more than Caroll's view. 

I bring this up not to embrace Penrose (I'm far from a platonist) but just to note that the arguments aren't as one sided as you think. I'm closer to a Spinozist view myself (which would put me in good company with Einstein) but there are lots of different views. There are contemporary dualists without necessarily embracing religion. Indeed some argue that the way neurobiologists work entails a king of latent dualism even as they embrace a nominalistic materialism. (NDPR did a review a few years back

More to the point, the type of materialism Carroll and others believe simply isn't entailed by science.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm pretty comfortable with my belief structure. I would call myself a "poetic naturalist", following the cue of Carroll.

And that's completely fine. My point was just that what you were saying this was science or entailed by science you were going well beyond what's empirical. But if you find Sean Carroll persuasive more power to you. I just don't for pretty specific reasons.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

If there is a battle going on between the revealed word of God and the philosophies of men, it seems that the only place further light and knowledge are being received is on the side of the philosophies of men, and that the only progress the church is making is relaxing its position on some things and saying that things that were once considered established doctrine are now merely dated opinions. That's a move in the right direction, sure. But when Mormon and science converge, will there be any Mormonism left?

Well I'd dispute your claim that only the "philosyophies of men" are mattering. I'd say there's lots of revelation and the philosophies of men (among some GA positions) are getting discarded. As for science, to me Mormonism embraces all truth so fundamentally Mormonism is science. However I'm sure that what today we consider either scientific or Mormon theology will be different from what people will consider scientific or doctrinal a hundred years from now. In that sense both evolve in reaction to investigation and inquiry. Which of course is what a good religion should do.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm not sure what you are talking about regarding how history is classified. I would consider questions like whether the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript to be within the purview of science. But then again, I readily admit I am confused about many things.

Typically most of the questions people worry about just aren't scientific in the least. That's not to say there aren't some places science matters. Just that the types of arguments you get in history just aren't scientific arguments. That's not to say there aren't arguments one can make just that they don't tend to be the types of arguments you find in the hard sciences or even the so-called soft sciences. The only reason I emphasize this is not because university classifications matter much but because of the danger of scientism. 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Which brings us back to so what? If I recall, my original point had to do with the fact that there is so much highly unlikely baggage associated with Mormonism and the Book of Mormon that it's hard to get excited about the evidence that's been offered that it's true. When you weigh all the evidence--not just the 10 items in the OP--it really isn't a close thing.

Right and my position you might recall is that there's insufficient evidence (and what public evidence there is tends to be weak). So in that regard our positions aren't that different although I'd say there are lots of private experiences that can be quite compelling. My qualms though were that your arguments ended up embracing scientism to a fair degree which just is deeply problematic. Further some of the problems you raise just aren't problems. That's not to say there aren't problems (and I even listed quite a few). But mind/body, resurrection, and so forth just aren't issues even if perhaps you don't have reason to believe in them.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Which brings us back to so what? If I recall, my original point had to do with the fact that there is so much highly unlikely baggage associated with Mormonism and the Book of Mormon that it's hard to get excited about the evidence that's been offered that it's true. When you weigh all the evidence--not just the 10 items in the OP--it really isn't a close thing.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

McMurrin is the first I am aware of who saw Mormonism as Pragmatism, though I don't recall him saying that explicitly.

Had a big comment on this and lost it. Ugh. I'll just say B. H. Roberts saw Mormonism as a kind of pragmatism. I'll point you to Juvenile Instructors series on William James and B. H. Roberts. To me some of the elements Roberts picks up from James are problematic. While Robert's view of intelligences largely comes from James in some ways he's the source of the tripartite view that sneaks Cartesian dualism back into Mormonism instead of its normal materialism.

26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Does anyone miss it?

While McConkie was overly dogmatic and often published even when he was told not to I think that theologically and even occasionally exegesically he has some deep insights. 

Link to comment
On 6/26/2018 at 11:12 AM, smac97 said:

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

I kind of blew this post off but I think I will answer it now perhaps so we can actually establish some kind of understanding.

In short the reason I blew it off was because I thought it was totally irrelevant to the point i was making.   Let me explain.

You asked me what I thought of these comments by Elder Holland, I believe assuming that i would disagree for some reason I do not understand

 

Quote

 

Faith and testimony, gospel devotion and Church loyalty, conviction so strong it leads to covenants and consecration are ultimately matters of the Spirit. They come as a gift from God, delivered and confirmed to our soul by the Holy Ghost in His divine role as revelator, witness, teacher of truth. But it should be noted that truly rock-ribbed faith and uncompromised conviction comes with its most complete power when it engages our head as well as our heart.

“Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind,”[1] Jehovah declared to the early Saints, and to Oliver Cowdery specifically He said, “I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost. . . . Behold, this is the spirit of revelation.”[2]

I have always loved that definition of revelation. For one thing, it makes clear that all revelation that can be called revelation comes through the influence of the Holy Ghost—that is to say that the receipt of any truth is ultimately a spiritual experience, an enlightenment facilitated and confirmed by the Holy Ghost. Secondly, that definition makes it clear that truth borne by the Holy Spirit comes with, in effect, two manifestations, two witnesses if you will—the force of fact as well as the force of feeling.

Peter assumed that two-fold aspect of our conviction when he said, “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.”[3]

Reasons for the hope that is in us. Reasons for our belief. I am not a lawyer as virtually all the Welch family men are, but I don’t have to be one to understand in a court of law the power and primacy of evidence. In making our case for the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, I believe God intends us to find and use the evidence He has given—reasons, if you will—which affirm the truthfulness of His work.

One of the seldom-told but truly striking stories of conversion in all of scripture is the success the later Nephi and Lehi had on their mission to the Lamanites outlined in the book of Helaman. After a dramatic sequence of earthquakes and voices from heaven, of angels appearing and prison walls crumbling, Mormon records that the people “were bidden to go forth and marvel not, neither should they doubt. And . . . they did go forth . . . declaring throughout . . . the [region] . . . all the things which they had heard and seen, inasmuch that the more part of the Lamanites were convinced of them, because of the greatness of the evidences which they had received.[4]

In his classic definition of faith the Apostle Paul suggests, with one of those paradoxes that so frequently crop up in the gospel, that evidence is still evidence even if it is not immediately observable. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,[5] he wrote. For me a classic example of substance I hope for and evidence of things I have not seen is the 531 pages of the Book of Mormon that come from a sheaf of gold plates some people saw and handled and hefted but I haven’t seen or handled or hefted, and neither have you. Nevertheless, the reality of those plates, the substance of them if you will, and the evidence that comes to us from them in the form of the Book of Mormon is at the heart, at the very center, of the hope and testimony and conviction of this work that is unshakably within me forever.

It is with reference to evidence and in this case literal, corporeal substance that Luke introduces the book of Acts:

“The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

“Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.”[6]

In one of the earliest such manifestations after His Resurrection, Jesus came to the eleven, inviting them to touch His hands and feet as He sat to eat meat and honeycomb.[7] To those who doubted, Mark says He “upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart.”[8]The message is that if members of the Godhead go to the trouble of providing “many infallible proofs”[9] of truth, then surely we are honor bound to affirm and declare that truth and may be upbraided if we do not. My testimony to you tonight is that the gospel is infallibly true and that a variety of infallible proofs supporting that assertion will continue to come until Jesus descends as the ultimate infallible truth of all. Our testimonies aren’t dependent on evidence—we still need that spiritual confirmation in the heart of which we have spoken—but not to seek for and not to acknowledge intellectual, documentable support for our belief when it is available is to needlessly limit an otherwise incomparably strong theological position and deny us a unique, persuasive vocabulary in the latter-day arena of religious investigation and sectarian debate. Thus armed with so much evidence of the kind we have celebrated here tonight, we ought to be more assertive than we sometimes are in defending our testimony of truth.

To that point I mention that while we were living and serving in England, I became fond of the writing of the English cleric Austin Farrer. Speaking of the contribution made by C. S. Lewis specifically and of Christian apologists generally, Farrer said: “Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.”[10]

 

Yes of course faith should engage our heads.  Why do you think I am always referencing philosophy?  Does philosophy not "count" as being "rational"?

Rather odd view to me.  To me it is the MOST rational human pursuit.

Yes of course we must rely on the Holy Ghost which is the spirit of revelation.  And that in red yet!  Do you think I deny that?   Why even mention it?

Yes the Holy Ghost comes by "fact"- ie rational means as well as spiritual.  THAT is why I study philosophy and would not have found the church without it.  There is no justification logically for Mormonism except by philosophical means which is why I am here.  That is a purely rational exercise.  Rationality teaches us that in the final analysis religious experience is ineffable.  You think I made that up?  No that is a rational idea with a history in philosophy - which is a rational exercise, part of which considers REASONING about what is REASONABLE and what is not.

Raw experience including religious experience is not a rational process.  It is something that happens. You drop a can on your toe- that is not a rational process.  A mosquito bites you and it itches, that is not a rational process.  God appears to you- that is not a rational process of logic.  Seeing a blue sky is not a rational experience of logic.  Gaining a testimony comes from the heart after you have prepared the ground in which you plant the seed.  The preparation of the ground is the rational process, the growth of the seed is not.

If you do not believe it is possible for God to appear to men you will not develop a testimony.  The seed will have fallen on a rock and be blown away by the wind.  You must FIRST believe that Joseph's vision was possible and that visions are JUSTIFIABLE and possible before you can possibly believe "it happened".  Otherwise it would be like telling people that you just arrived in town by flying horse.   They would not even accept that as a possibility.

I am HERE to give people a "reason for the hope which is in them"   I have no clue why you would mention this.  As I see it now they have no REASON because they do not understand philosophy.

YES I am here to provide reasons for the truth of the work of God.  What do you think I am doing here??

The  philosophical justification for relgious statements is PRECISELY finding REASONS for the truths of the gospel.  You keep repeating "reason".  Do I have to likewise?  That is the REASON I post ABOUT REASON and why it is reasonable to be a believer and especially a Mormon.

The Lamanites were convinced by earthquakes?  Good for them.  When God tells me one is coming and it happens, that will be nice but I will not be more convinced than I am now.  I can't help it if the Lamanites were a bit behind the curve.   It could have been a coincidence , I guess they didn't think of that.

Yes the reason I accept the BOM are at the HEART of my testimony also- but historicity is not a good reason!  I have reasons that transcend historicity and are perfectly rational.

I am glad Jesus showed infallible proofs after his resurrection.  Too bad they didn't make it into the bible because then everyone would be at least Christian, if they were infallible.

Then he says our testimonies don't depend on evidence- another agreement there so not sure why you went through this whole exercise.  No disagreement whatsoever so far.  And yes I have my reasonable documentable proof found right below in my siggy for why intellectually the gospel is true and why it is true in our hearts as well.  If you can't understand that, I am sorry but i will be glad to teach you what I can.  And no archaeology is not included in any of those documentable reasons because archaeology does not prove religion.

And yes I agree that reason provides the basis for faith as I have said numerous times in this post along.

You asked me what I thought about these ideas and the answer is that I agree whole heartedly

Why are you asking?   There was a lot of time in your post- thanks- and a lot of time in my answer as well- to what avail?

To say "yes I agree"?  OK

YES I agree.

Next question

Where is Jim F?

 

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...