mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: 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. 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. I only heard him speak live once and he was electric. He was at a Stake Conference. Incredible speaker with his measured meter and that Utah twang and the careful articulation and precise cadence. Electric. He could easily give the oratory of Billy Graham a run for his money! If you just listen to the first part of this, you can hear him winding up in tone and speed- great oratory- give it a few minutes and just listen to the delivery. Amazing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REcwm16AMlA Edited June 28, 2018 by mfbukowski
cinepro Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 4 hours ago, smac97 said: 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. Why would a scholar of ancient America be interested in any of those types of evidences? None of them tie The Book of Mormon to ancient America. If someone who studies ancient America is supposed to devote their time to studying Middle Eastern "Hebraisms" in order to convince themselves that The Book of Mormon tells the story of people in ancient America (in spite of the lack of evidence tying in directly to ancient America), then we have probably just figured out another answer to Ryan's original question. 3
mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: 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. 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. Yes I saw that series years ago and often quote it myself but who was "Stan" the author? Do you know?
clarkgoble Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Yes I saw that series years ago and often quote it myself but who was "Stan" the author? Do you know? Stan Thayne. I believe he got a doctorate in Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He was one of the people who started JI up, although he doesn't post there much anymore. I believe he's part of the generation that's really come of age the past decade that's focused a lot on racial construction in Mormon history. 2
Exiled Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 5 hours 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 I'm curious how you can be so sure with the assertion that we "presently lack the ability to discern that" (archaeological evidence supporting bofm historicity) Does the apologetic end with "how do we know anything?" Would you agree that at a certain point one must admit that a lack of evidence really is a lack of evidence and that historicity is not even possible, much less probable? Or is the possibility of some future breakthrough too overwhelming? Tomorrow is always full of possibilities. However, I just can't ride the possibilities somehow morphing into probabilities train any more. How do you do it? Repetition of belief like the OP author? Or does emotional or spiritual experience fill in the gap between what is merely possible and what is probable for you?
mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) 16 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? OK now back to my buddy Mr. C. I will take it paragraph by paragraph. Quote 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. I totally agree, and it is important to know that it IS and WAS a way of interpreting symbols- the language and theories of others- that developed the scientific method. Science IS a METHOD more than anything and what is a method except people thinking together- in language- and coming up with, in debate, a HUMAN way of solving problems. Take a look a the history of the development of this way of interpreting symbols- it is fascinating: https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-method3.htm It IS based on how the human brain works- what does not? Think about that!! We organize matter unorganized through our social interaction of IDEAS coming from a pool of human brains and the only way this pool of brains can be constructed is by symbols = language!! That is what a scientific "journal" IS- and that is what "publishing" IS and that is what "peer review" IS! Now it is important to understand this point about what vocabulary Sorenson is using here. He uses the word "theory" a lot and I would suggest the more common word we might use today would be "paradigm" He is talking about PARADIGMS which are a collective interpretation of symbols shared within a context. Science is such a collection of paradigms and so is religion! All we have as tools to "think" are collectively developed paradigms. We test the paradigms and see if they work. If a scientific paradigm works, it does something useful out in the world- it cures cancer or gets us on a plane to NY or a rocket to Mars or us typing on the internet swapping even more symbols than anyone ever conceived of before. Obviously swapping symbols is what we are doing at this very moment!! If a religious paradigm works, it gives us a peaceful purpose in life and teaches us what is right or wrong, and describes our place in the world around us. So both religion and science and every other human pursuit are under the category of the development of theories which practice have shown works. Every single student at UCLA knows the quote that "Education is learning to use the tools the race has found indispensable". THAT is a perfect statement of pragmatism! http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/980316first These tools have evolved in us- or at least consider that as a paradigm for the moment. Consider the very paradigm of evolution. Something happens "in the world". There is a cataclysm. The organism either ADAPTS or dies. LIFE is not about KNOWING the world it is about ADAPTING to it! A paramecium cannot tell you "What really happened" to change its environment. All it can tell you is the ineffable experience of being uncomfortable perhaps to the point of death. - It must adapt or die. So too for humans. It doesn't make a difference on some basic level what the meterological causes are of a dust storm- the only thing that matters is CHANGING YOURSELF or die. And so you wrap your cape around you, head for cover, go into your tent etc You have developed a paradigm. It is a good practice in a dust storm to go into your tent. This is a theory in your head- an intellectual change within you to adapt to unknown causes of dust being forced down your windpipe. You don't have to know "what is really happening" just what works to save your life So what does going inside during a dust storm teach us about the "real world" and the causes of dust storms? Nothing at first but then to preserve humanity we better be able to know when hurricanes are coming and dust storms. And so we put forth theories. The gods are blowing wind at us so let's appease the gods! Nope doesn't work. But that is still a humanly invented paradigm designed to solve the problem. And so it goes flash forward a few thousand years and we have the babe on TV telling us there will be a wind storm and snow flurries. Thousands of years later and we are still using theories and paradigms which keep us comfortable- now more sophisticated -but really in principle no different that going into your tent in a dust storm What is prime here? Human survival and making life a little "nicer" meaning easier to adapt to! And all through humans swapping symbols about what works to make life better and what "better" even means So the function at the most base level for science is to put forth paradigms to make life nicer. No different than it was thousands of years ago. The PURPOSE is still there and the theory shows us how our perceptions of the world have changed while the world has not changed at all. There are still snow storms but now through using paradigms that work, we go into our brick houses and turn up the thermostat and snuggle under a blanket listening to the wind, without a worry in the world. So too with religion- another kind of paradigm created by sharing and interpreting symbols but these paradigms are about what is good and bad for people, what it means to be a good human and WHY we should be. Quote 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. So where do you get the idea I think religion is "better"?? Is it because YOU think science is "better" and making any equivalence must by its very nature put down science? I don't get that and you seem to keep coming up with the same point out of nowhere- at least to me! Where Sorrenson and I agree is that PARADIGMS are prior to evidence. You have to have a scientific theory/method/paradigm before you can do experiment ONE. So perhaps there is the confusion. Religion is a philosophy/paradigm generator/symbol swapper and so if we use the word "philosophy" in a general way to replace "theory/paradigm/symbol swapper perhaps that is where you get the idea that religion is prior to science You MUST believe SOMETHING before anything happens- maybe that is a way to put it You have to first BELIEVE in your mind and have faith that pulling your cape around your face will save you from the dust storm, or going into your tent will do so. That is a theory and a belief, so belief is prior to action. For there to be science there must be BELIEF and faith in a method before anything happens. No method or faith in it and we are back in a couple of hundred thousand years BC No symbols, no language. So now we are talking about symbolic beliefs and in a sense that sounds a lot like "religion" to me. At one point it was all religion and we were appeasing the gods to change the weather etc- but it is still about acting on beliefs (paradigms) and that is the confusion Belief in symbols is essentially religion. And science is certainly now a secular religion. It is The Almighty which Knows All or at least can in principle. Have faith in science my brothers and we will be saved! Seriously- those terms apply. Quote 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? Agree fully Why the comparison? To show that both religion and science are based first in "philosophy"- the interpretation of language- which is prior in many ways to both. Again, without a need to get something physical done, there is no method, no paradigm, no science. If there is no need for a purpose in life, there is no need for paradigms about what gives life purpose, no morals or religion. Philosophy is the Mother of both. That's why they still give out a Doctor of Philosophy in Physics degrees. If you don't know the philosophy behind physics, you don't know physics Raw data is not physics- the data needs interpretation within a paradigm If you don't know the philosophy behind religion you don't "know" religion. You may feel it in your heart- that's fine- but you don't KNOW it. Raw history about Jesus is not religion- that history needs interpretation and spiritual value within it, interpreted within a paradigm. Was Jesus a myth, a fraud, a prophet, or the Son of God? At least that is how I construct my interpretation of symbols in a way which makes my life purposeful But the bottom line is that for me and possibly Sorenson explaining why the windstorm is blowing still does not solve my problem of being comfortable in it. I need instructions on how to build a house or instructions on what gives my life purpose to be happy at home with a purpose in life. Man is that he might have joy. I heard that somewhere. You can't have instructions without symbols AND the intellectual tools which the human race has found to be indispensable to have both. I think that's what he meant. Edited June 28, 2018 by mfbukowski 1
Rajah Manchou Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 6 hours 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). We should probably go to his original request. The way you've worded it misses a lot of the substance. Jenkins asked: "Can anyone cite any single credible fact, object, site, or inscription from the New World that supports any one story found in the Book of Mormon?" He's not asking specifically for anything Nephite, Jaredite or Mulekite. He's asking for any one fact that supports any story found in the Book of Mormon. If you think you have something that could qualify as a single credible fact, object, site, or inscription from the New World that supports any one story found in the Book of Mormon, then we can discuss here. It doesn't even have to be Nephite, it could be Mayan, or Toltec or Olmec or whatever. 1
Rajah Manchou Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 10 hours ago, smac97 said: If you give me a nondescript quarter, and put in a bag filled with 500 other quarters and shake the bag about, in my view it would be difficult or impossible to say that we could, with any measure of accuracy or confidence, pour out the bag and specifically identify your quarter. Again, I don't think critics care about whether or not you can identify a Nephite quarter in a bag of Mayan quarters. The question is, does anything in the bag support your claims? 2
Robert F. Smith Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 7 hours ago, Analytics said: .................................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. We might better define our terms of reference. LDS theology posits an entirely naturalistic universe. You seem to imagine only abstractions and symbols, along with galloping discrepancies with science. Doesn't sound like Mormonism to me, although there is plenty of symbolism in LDS temples. Think for a moment at least about the very pragmatic nature of Mormonism. Ordinary Mormons are down-home folks, not a bunch of pointy-headed intellectuals, and Church manuals reflect that fact (milk before meat, etc.). Are you interested in a scholarly discussion, or are we to be hamstrung by Correlation and anecdotal nonsense? 7 hours ago, Analytics said: 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. What is it that you think I don't already understand about science? In 100 hours at UCLA, much of it in science courses such as paleoethnobotany and archeological dating techniques, I have a gpa of 3.9 overall. I also have a certificate in Crime Scene Investigation from CalState Long Beach. I understand how evidence is gathered and evaluated. Applied science. I don't have any problems with science. 7 hours ago, Analytics said: So, we agree that the truth contradicts what the lesson manuals say. We are making progress! No. It is only that the lesson manuals have nothing to do with an authentic scholarly discussion of LDS theology. That is not their purpose, in any case. I take it that you do understand the purpose of LDS manuals is to teach good, Christian behavior based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Theology, philosophy, and science are not at issue in those manuals. 7 hours ago, Analytics said: Neither did the religion of Bruce R. McConkie, apparently. There are still plenty of Mormons around who see things from the McConkie POV. However, I wasn't thinking about the narrow and superficial POVs which some people hold, but rather the dynamism of a religion which has an open canon and continuing revelation. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 8 hours 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. He especially liked the practical results of Mormon culture, and frequently praised it, even though he was not a believer in Mormon religion. 2
Gray Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 20 hours 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. Can loose translation solve the anachronism of Christianity hundreds of years before its time? If the translation is that loose, than the Book looses its theological significance for Mormons. And actually if it's that loose it ceases to be a book about anything in particular. 20 hours ago, clarkgoble said: 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. 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) I generally agree with your summary of the differences between the two approaches. Very nicely put.
jkwilliams Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 8 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I only heard him speak live once and he was electric. He was at a Stake Conference. Incredible speaker with his measured meter and that Utah twang and the careful articulation and precise cadence. Electric. He could easily give the oratory of Billy Graham a run for his money! If you just listen to the first part of this, you can hear him winding up in tone and speed- great oratory- give it a few minutes and just listen to the delivery. Amazing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REcwm16AMlA I have to admit I was extremely moved by his final conference address in April 1985, just 2 weeks before his death. We in the mission office in Bolivia somehow got a cassette of the conference, and we listened to that talk in particular. He may have been too dogmatic and opinionated, but his testimony of the Savior impressed me deeply.
Kevin Christensen Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 43 minutes ago, Gray said: Can loose translation solve the anachronism of Christianity hundreds of years before its time? If the translation is that loose, than the Book looses its theological significance for Mormons. And actually if it's that loose it ceases to be a book about anything in particular. There is, of course, this: http://www.margaretbarker.com/Temple/default.htm And some implications for the Book of Mormon here: https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=4 And here, for an informed non-LDS take: https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/joseph-smith-and-preexilic-israelite-religion And designation of Book of Mormon translation as either "tight" or "loose" overlooks the realities of translation that led Kevin Barney to propose "complex" as a better descriptor. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 2
jkwilliams Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 6 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: We should probably go to his original request. The way you've worded it misses a lot of the substance. Jenkins asked: "Can anyone cite any single credible fact, object, site, or inscription from the New World that supports any one story found in the Book of Mormon?" He's not asking specifically for anything Nephite, Jaredite or Mulekite. He's asking for any one fact that supports any story found in the Book of Mormon. If you think you have something that could qualify as a single credible fact, object, site, or inscription from the New World that supports any one story found in the Book of Mormon, then we can discuss here. It doesn't even have to be Nephite, it could be Mayan, or Toltec or Olmec or whatever. Yep, that was the challenge. As I recall, Hamblin's response was first to note NHM and a couple of Old World possibilities, which Jenkins rightly said didn't fit the challenge. The rest of the conversation, in between a lot of rancor, was Hamblin trying to explain that we would have no idea what such evidence would look like. That may indeed be a valid point, but it is useless as evidence of anything. The "debate," as it were, was a classic example of Sagan's "There's a dragon in my garage" analogy: Quote "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage" Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin[4]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity! "Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon. "Where's the dragon?" you ask. "Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon." You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints. "Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air." Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless." You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible. "Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work. Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. In this case, what's the difference between Nephites who leave no trace of themselves and no Nephites at all? 4
champatsch Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) 19 hours ago, jkwilliams said: but you still have a text reflecting 19th century thought that is textually and thematically dependent on the English Bible. The part in bold depends on preferred viewpoint. There is ample evidence for things that were of concern in the early modern Reformation period. For example: (1) People are burnt at the stake for heresy (especially in the 1530s and the 1550s in England) There is also evidence for burning their scriptures (especially in the 1520s in England). (2) Judgment day will occur at the bar of God (where one will stand at the bar when their case is tried before the Lord) There is no bar of justice in the New Testament. Rather, the judicial bar dates from medieval times up to the 1700s. (3) The term secret combinations is used to refer to secret conspiracies against the government and the state church throughout the 1600s and the 1700s The earliest citation for secret combination(s) dates from 1602. Shortly thereafter, the phrase was commonly used in reference to the 1605 attempt by Guy Faux and other Catholics to blow up Parliament. The first reference of secret combination(s) to masons dates from 1796, but this refers to a union of brick layers attempting to control the price of labor. (4) There are four pairs of ecclesiastical words that William Tyndale and Thomas More debated in the late 1520s (congregation versus church, elder versus priest, love versus charity, and repent versus do penance); translators of the Early English Bible from 1526 to 1611 were forced to deal with these terms in their biblical translations The Book of Mormon text is informed by this debate: church is used with its dual meaning (the word congregation is ignored except in biblical citations); the church has both elders and priests; the word charity means ‘love’; and the word penance is completely ignored since the practice does not occur in the Book of Mormon. (5) The true church does not permit child and infant baptism, thus accepting the position of the Anabaptists (who were considered radical and were murdered by both Catholics and Reformed Protestants) (6) A strong preference for piety in living and worship (the Puritan lifestyle) (7) The Lord’s sacrament is “a symbolic memorial” (Zwingli, 1484-1531), but includes a spiritual renewal (Bullinger, 1504-1575) This characterizes the essence of the sacrament prayers, first given by Jesus in 3 Nephi 18:13 and 20:8-9 and then later in Moroni 4-5. Any question of transubstantiation and any variant of it, such as consubstantiation, is ignored. There is also a secondary issue relating to the sacrament, the reference in Moroni 4:2 to the congregation kneeling down with the elder or priest when he blessed the sacrament. In 1562, during the reprinting of the Book of Common Prayer under King Edward VI, the issue of the church kneeling with the priest was resolved in favor the traditional practice. It had been criticized by John Knox as an unnecessary Catholic practice that the Church of England had decided to continue. Edited June 28, 2018 by champatsch
Analytics Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 10 hours ago, clarkgoble said: 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? It depends upon how persuasive I would have found their arguments to be, and whether it was relevant to what my thoughts were when I was making that post. 10 hours ago, clarkgoble said: (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) Good for you. In that book Carroll only mentions string theory in passing, describing it as an "entirely speculative idea." Personally, I don't know much about it. 10 hours ago, clarkgoble said: You need to read more philosophy. Most philosophy puts me to sleep. But assuming I can ingest enough caffeine to keep me awake, what do you suggest I cut out of my life so that I can spend more time reading philosophy? 10 hours ago, clarkgoble said: I don't accept dualism but it's simply not true that there's no arguments for other ontologies of mind. You aren't a dualist? You think that when your brain shuts down, your self awareness will disappear? Interesting. I know there are many views about the ontology of the mind. The ones I'm interested in are the ones that are consistent with what we actually know about physics. And the only ones I'm aware of that meet that criteria are the ones that say the mind somehow emerges from the physical processes of the brain. 10 hours ago, clarkgoble said: 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. Personally, I'd be thrilled if Penrose were correct. I find his thoughts fascinating. But, I'm told, "Penrose’s argument is elaborate and ingenious, but ultimately unconvincing to the vast majority of researchers studying physics, neuroscience, or consciousness. (Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 369). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.) 10 hours ago, clarkgoble said: More to the point, the type of materialism Carroll and others believe simply isn't entailed by science. Here is a concise quote from Carroll about the type of materialism he believes in: "we have to be willing to accept uncertainty and incomplete knowledge, and always be ready to update our beliefs as new evidence comes in. We will see how our best approach to describing the universe is not a single, unified story but an interconnected series of models appropriate at different levels. Each model has a domain in which it is applicable, and the ideas that appear as essential parts of each story have every right to be thought of as “real.” Our task is to assemble an interlocking set of descriptions, based on some fundamental ideas, that fit together to form a stable planet of belief." Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 4). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. Do you really think that contradicts science? Or are you saying that he believes some things that are beyond science like the metaphysical assumption that the universe is governed by natural laws and that through careful observation, we can infer what those laws are. Or that there is the further philosophical position that knowing what those laws are and creating a world view that is consistent with them is a good thing. The book I have on my mind is about philosophy as much as it's about science. 10 hours ago, clarkgoble said: As for science, to me Mormonism embraces all truth so fundamentally Mormonism is science. Says the guy who thinks Carroll's poetic naturalism isn't entailed by science. 10 hours ago, clarkgoble said: 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. 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. Science has a lot to say about many questions that people worry about. As you read this, think of a quick example or two about things that people worry about. Big, important things. Are you really suggesting that psychology, sociology, and economics have no bearing on those things? From my viewpoint, the questions people worry about pertain to the real world, which is the dead-center purview of science. Do you really think most of the questions people worry about are things like the age-old question of how many angels can dance on the point of a needle? The danger of scientism? As compared to the danger of religion? For example, one of the real question people are worrying about is the fact that some unfortunate people are suicidal because of the confluence of their religious beliefs and their sexual orientation. If your religion makes you happy then more power to you. But if your religion makes you suicidal, you really ought to consider changing religions. 10 hours ago, clarkgoble said: 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. It's easy to say that your religious beliefs are entirely consistent with science and all we need is science to catch up with the religious dogma, coupled with, perhaps, some fine tuning of the dogma itself. Is there anybody of any religion who would claim otherwise? My point isn't just that we don't have reason to believe in the resurrection. Rather, it's that we have very good reason to disbelieve the resurrection. Of course very many smart people believe in all sorts of things, which gets back to my point about the inconsistency of people's thoughts, compartmentalization, rationalization, etc.
jkwilliams Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) 44 minutes ago, champatsch said: The part in bold depends on preferred viewpoint. There is ample evidence for things that were of concern in the early modern Reformation period. We've been back and forth on this, and I am content to simply agree to disagree. I appreciate the work you have done, as it requires much more effort than I could muster. I just don't see it being significant. Edited June 28, 2018 by jkwilliams
Gray Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) 20 hours ago, smac97 said: Hence my requests for clarification. Methods in what I'm calling critical or scientific scholarship vary a bit because of course we're talking about multiple disciplines. But the general approach is evidence-based. Critical scholars attempt to devise theories that best account for all available, public evidence, regardless of their theological commitments or implications. Apologists take a small subset of available evidence and use that to advocate for a theologically-comfortable argument that might fit at least some of the public evidence. Quote Atheism is a theological commitment. What does atheism have to do with critical scholarship? Most critical scholars in Biblical studies are religious. Critical scholarship isn't about advocating for atheism or theism. Quote A priori rejection of the truth claims of the LDS Church is a theological commitment. What would this have to do with critical scholarship? Quote That door does indeed swing both ways. Critical scholarship shouldn't take theological commitments into account, but it often does. Can you name some specific examples? It sounds like you're describing apologetics. Quote You could say the same thing about the Old Testament, and generalized arguments from Christians the world over that it "posits a Christianity . . . several hundred years before the development of Christianity." No, you couldn't say that at all. The Old Testament is not a Christian document. Christians certainly use the OT and make use it for theological purposes, but that's not the same thing. Quote And yet there is ample academic scrutiny of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. Yes, both of them are important historical and religious documents. Quote I understand what the terms mean (again, I question whether you do). They are not mutually exclusive approaches. I think you think you understand it, but it's not clear that you do. You seem to be confusing critical scholarship with counter-apologetics. Quote You made a vague reference to "very obvious and large" anachronisms. You take these as a given. As axiomatic. As established. My point is that many so-called anachronisms are very much open for reasoned and principled disagreement and discussion. But now you're just using ridicule and contempt to sidestep arguments. As you like. They are a given. Nothing could be more firmly established. Christianity in the fourth century BCE is as anachronistic as a DeLorean in 14th century CE. No one is ridiculing anything, but I can see how playing that card might be tempting to you. Quote I think there are. Quite a few, actually. There actually are none. I'm speaking of course of historical arguments. It's long been a faith proposition of Mormonism to project modern theology into ancient times, as a harmonization exercise. Of course historians don't attempt to harmonize - that's something apologists do. Quote The same can be said of all sorts of religious claims. The Book of Mormon posits that Lehi and his descendants learned about Jesus Christ through revelation from God. That they learned these things before Christ was born is functionally on par with biblical claims of prophecies concerning the coming of Jesus Christ. Consider Matthew 2: Do you understand the difference between a theological position and a historical one? Theology is much looser. History has more stringent rules. Quote The Bible posits that "wise men from the east" saw a star in the heavens, which they took to be a sign of the coming of the "King of the Jews." This is an area that critical scholarship deals with. Not prophesy per se, but whether the story of the wise men actually has some basis in history (it doesn't) Quote The Bible posits that Bethlehem would be the place "where Christ should be born." Again, yes, critical scholarship doesn't deal with how you might theologically interpret prophecy, but it does deal with the birthplace of Jesus (which was most likely Nazareth). Quote These are divine claims. Prophetic claims. They are not susceptible to testing by scholars. And yet scholars the world over scrutinize the New Testament, regardless of the verity of these claims. The parts that interact with history are testable. Theological statements like "Jesus is the Messiah" or "Jesus is the son of God" or "Jesus died for your sins" are not. But I thought we were talking about critical scholarship vs apologetics? Neither one of those areas is about pure theological belief. Quote So why can't scholars take a similar approach to the Book of Mormon? Hamblin's answer to this question is, I think, correct. Critical scholarship doesn't deal with theology. Theologians deal with theology. These are non-overlapping magisteria. No critical scholar is going to tell anyone that they can't take it on faith that Lehi sailed across the ocean blue or that Jesus died for their sins. Quote And yet it includes the same sort of fantastical elements that, in your view, disqualify the Book of Mormon from scholarly examination. It's not the fantastic elements. The Bible is full of fantastic elements. But anachronisms help us date any text. There are anachronisms in the Bible too. The anachronisms in the BOM rule out its status as an ancient text. But of course that doesn't mean it's not an important text or a "true" text in a theological sense. Quote The Iliad is used not to examine whether Zeus was a real figure, but as a resource for data points for the location of Troy. But I get your point, and it has some relevance. The provenance of the Book of Mormon is in dispute. But then, so is the provenance of parts of the Bible. But that dispute doesn't preclude scholarly examination. There is certainly much of the Bible that is ahistorical, in the sense that it describes stories that likely never occurred. But it's historical in the sense that it's ancient. The Book of Mormon certainly merits scholarly examination, as an important 19th century religious text. Quote Christianity was not "invented." And Christians the world over believe that their faith is also found in the Old Testament ("before the invention of Christianity"). Whatever word you prefer to quibble about, it's not an important distinction. The idea that Christian faith is found in the OT is a faith statement. A spiritual interpretation, not a historical interpretation. Quote Meh. That's like saying American common law can't exist because common law is an English thing. Or that Lehi couldn't have had a "compass" because such a thing was not invented until much later. Common origins. Prophets and revelations. Yours is a pronouncement of what God can or cannot do, not a scholarly assessment. The moment you talk about God doing something miraculous and anachronistic, we've left the area of history and critical scholarship. History can't evaluate God, it can only evaluate historical evidence. Quote You may as well scoff at the notion of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. I mean, you can, but that doesn't get us very far. We can't prove it, and you can't disprove it. It's a question of faith that's essentially beyond the realms of empirical testability. Meaning it's not historical, but fundamentally theological. Historians talk about what people believed about Jesus' resurrection and when they believed it. They don't talk about whether or not God really raised Jesus up to heaven. Is it becoming more clear now? Quote Not quite. No evidence that can be definitively identified as Nephite. There may very well be Nephite artifacts which have been discovered and photographed and catalogued, and perhaps even some on display in museums. Hamblin's point is that we presently have no way of differentiating "Nephite" artifacts from any others. You're not saying anything different from what I said. If it were compelling evidence it would be identifiable evidence. Quote So it's not a matter of there being no evidence in existence at all, but rather that there is no evidence that can be definitively attributed to the people described in the Boof of Mormon. Maybe, maybe not. I think Hamblin's point remains apt. Thanks, -Smac If the claimed evidence cannot be positively identified as evidence, it doesn't forward your position. Edited June 28, 2018 by Gray 1
Analytics Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: We might better define our terms of reference. LDS theology posits an entirely naturalistic universe. And it also posits things that contradict what we know about the naturalistic universe. 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: What is it that you think I don't already understand about science? In 100 hours at UCLA, much of it in science courses such as paleoethnobotany and archeological dating techniques, I have a gpa of 3.9 overall. I also have a certificate in Crime Scene Investigation from CalState Long Beach. I understand how evidence is gathered and evaluated. Applied science. I don't have any problems with science. The book I recommended overviews some of science with a big focus on Quantum Mechanics, but the main reason I recommended it was because of the philosophical position it articulates. 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: No. It is only that the lesson manuals have nothing to do with an authentic scholarly discussion of LDS theology. The point here isn't to have an authentic scholarly discussion of LDS theology. It is to explain why Mormons are politely ignored when they present evidence of the Book of Mormon being ancient history. 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: That is not their purpose, in any case. I take it that you do understand the purpose of LDS manuals is to teach good, Christian behavior based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Theology, philosophy, and science are not at issue in those manuals. Can you clarify what we are talking about? Are we talking about "authentic scholarly discussion of LDS theology", or are we talking about what actually happens at Church? I just went to lds.org and started drilling down on lesson manuals to see what the manuals say their purpose is. I found myself at the first Sunday School lesson taught each year to youth. According to the manual, "Throughout the ages, prophets have revealed truths about the nature of God. As we diligently study their testimonies in the scriptures, we can learn about Heavenly Father’s attributes and increase our faith and testimonies. The better we understand the nature of our Heavenly Father, the better we understand our own divine potential as His spirit children." That's the explicit purpose. It then goes into all sorts of teachings about God. "The Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bone...God created all things and is the ruler of the universe, being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent (through His Spirit), mankind has a special relationship to Him that differentiates man from all other created things: man is literally God’s offspring, made in His image, whereas all other things are but the work of His hands..." (from the Bible Dictionary entry of "God", which is linked to from the lesson manual as a primary resource). To me, those seem like theological claims, but also claims that have bearing on the real world and are thus within the purview of science. Further, an explicit main point of the lesson is how we can "know" these things about God. If we are talking about how we know things, it is fair to compare the epistemology of science to the epistemology of the religion that's being taught in the class. What I think is really going on here is that you compartmentalize everything. While all of this dogma is being taught, it is with a wink-wink and is intended to remain in a nice little box, and the only thing meant to really be taken away from it is being socialized and a sense of camaraderie with the people you are spending your time with as you go through the ritual. The point isn't to really believe those things, much less deeply consider how what's taught in the lesson stacks up to scientific knowledge and scientific ways of learning things such as evolution, genetics, the second law of thermodynamics, how science knows what it knows, cognitive biases, etc. And you probably have different mental boxes for scholarly discourse and what you really believe is going on. People have religious beliefs, and if we are talking about religious beliefs as religious beliefs, that's all fine. We can be all academic post-modern and pretend all cultures are equally fascinating and virtuous and try to describe everything with nonjudgmental wonder and appreciation. But when we start talking about trying to persuade people with actual evidence, then gloves have to come off. 1
Gray Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: There is, of course, this: http://www.margaretbarker.com/Temple/default.htm And some implications for the Book of Mormon here: https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=4 And here, for an informed non-LDS take: https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/joseph-smith-and-preexilic-israelite-religion And designation of Book of Mormon translation as either "tight" or "loose" overlooks the realities of translation that led Kevin Barney to propose "complex" as a better descriptor. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA If Margaret Barker (who seems to be quoted in LDS apologetic circles but is otherwise quite obscure) is advocating for full-developed Christian theology in the first temple period, she's even fringier than I thought. This is illustrative of what I was talking about before, in the difference between critical scholarship and apologetics. 1
Ryan Dahle Posted June 28, 2018 Author Posted June 28, 2018 On 6/22/2018 at 6:58 PM, cinepro said: Book of Mormon studies actually really reminds me of other "studies" that focus on conspiracy theories and supernatural phenomenon. Those who study UFOs, or Bigfoot, or the truth behind 9/11, also have voluminous research and evidences that are undeniable to the believers. They publish in journals of their own making, and hold seminars and symposiums, but, like The Book of Mormon scholars, their research is totally ignored by the evidence-based fields of research. There's a reason for that. They would all tell you it's because of a conspiracy, or the close-mindedness of the mainstream. 10 hours 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. 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. I'm responding to both of these comments because they basically argue the same thing. Look, Jenkins had several points. And one of his MAIN points was very much about testing to see if LDS scholars could bring up a single valid piece of evidence in support of the Book of Mormon's alleged ancient American context. By doing this, he was trying to justify the proposition that non-mainstream academic research isn't worth serious investigation. So these two efforts are related, and my point stands. I get that outside scholars have a good degree of skepticism about non-mainstream research. I do too. And I don't fault anyone for it. However, most competent scholars in their fields recognize that even though mainstream academic publishing outlets often work well as gatekeepers, ensuring that the public isn't fed pseudo-science, these outlets still have their own challenges and biases. It is true that the venue in which something is published provides a good initial piece of information about how reliable it might be. It would be logically fallacious, however, to assume that all scholarly material published in mainstream academic outlets is believable and all scholarly material (meaning material produced by legitimate scholars) in non-academic publishing outlets is not believable or not worth serious investigation. I don't believe in ancient aliens or UFOs or Big Foot. I recognize that there are many enthusiasts who do and that some of them may have valid degrees related to their investigation of these topics. I, like Jenkins, don't feel a need to seriously study the claims made by these groups. However, if I were to investigate them, or communicate with them about their claims, or publicly comment on their claims, I would definitely not use Jenkins' silly approach. I imagine, and hope, that I would be mature and fair enough to say something like "Ok, show me what you think are the top three pieces of evidence supporting your theory. If you believe in Big Foot, or UFOs, or ancient aliens, give me your very best arguments to sample. And if these arguments prove to be valid and in keeping with the type of arguments, methodologies, and evidences used in legitimate scholarly fields, I may be willing to take them more seriously, or at least withhold judgement and not dismiss them outright as pseudo-science." In evaluating the proffered claims, I would first ask myself general questions such as (1) is this category of evidence used by mainstream scholars in the same or similar fields? (2) are their methods similar to current methods used in mainstream scholarship in the same or similar fields of research? (3) are their types of arguments used analogous to arguments made in mainstream scholarship in the same or similar fields? (4) is there currently any scholarly criticism or engagement with these specific claims? (5) do the individuals making these claims have legitimate degrees or experience in scholarly fields directly related to their claims? (6) is the scholarship of these individuals, outside of the current claims under investigation, respected in the broader academic community they specialize in? (7) is their level of scholarship comparable to the erudition and competence of mainstream scholars? (8) do the individuals making these claims seem to be aware of the relevant and current research in the fields pertaining to the evidences they are advocating for? (9) and, by far the most important factor, does a careful and thorough evaluation suggest that these evidences are legitimate. These few samples of evidence, on their own, may not compel belief. But are they at least legitimate? In other words, my bias (like Jenkins' bias) may incline me not to go and study the bulk of what these enthusiasts are claiming, but if I do engage in an act of sampling their research, I hope that I would fairly sample the very best that they have to offer and not arbitrarily shut the door on ALL valid types of evidence except the one category I knew they didn't have. Jenkins' efforts to demonstrate that LDS Mesoamerican research isn't worth engaging was obviously fundamentally flawed. Why? Because the same method would cast doubt on many documents that legitimate mainstream scholars feel are authentically ancient. You don't need inscriptional data to verify that a document is ancient. Many other factors are utilized by scholars to help date information, and have been used when a document's antiquity is in question. Yet, for some reason, Jenkins precluded all categories of legitimate evidence except one. Hence my claim that his little exercise was arbitrary and unjustifiably biased. Another important point. While I may be disinclined to research ancient aliens, UFOs, Big Foot, Young Earth Creationism, and many other topics, I am under no illusion that I am able to pass any sort of authoritative judgment on these topics. It is my bias that leads me to not deal with these groups, in other words, my preconceived assumptions about the quality of their claims, based on my general (although certainly not absolute) confidence in our academic gatekeepers. I would go even further, though. It would be inappropriate for anyone to attempt to speak authoritatively about the validity of these claims who isn't intimately familiar with them. If a legitimate scientist wants to publicly oppose the claims of these groups or cast doubt on them, he has a scholarly obligation to know exactly what it is he is refuting and why. Otherwise, the chances are very high that he is going to misrepresent the arguments that he is attempting to refute. And I think we all agree that that is not a scholarly thing to do. If Jenkins were to treat the claims of these groups the way he has treated LDS scholarship on the Book of Mormon, his effort would be equally flawed. In each case, all he would be doing is to show how strong his own bias is. And I am saying this as someone who in no way is inclined to seriously study what these groups have to say. One can appeal to popularity or appeal to authority or make ad hominem attacks all day long (such as labeling researchers or their research as non-mainstream, non-legitimate, or non-scholarly), but we can all agree that these approaches are well-known logical fallacies. Such acts of labeling may very well explain the biases that people have which incline them to not seriously investigate certain claims, but what they cannot tell about is the actual validity of the claims themselves. That, in contrast, would take fair and thorough evaluation, not preconceived guesswork. Have scholars outside of the LDS scholarly community ever fairly evaluated claims related to historicity? Yes. Have any of them been impressed? Yes. Quite a few actually. Have most of them joined our faith community? No. Does this mean the evidences they saw weren't legitimate or good? No. All it means is that there is a lot more to joining a faith community than to determine whether or not a specific group of evidences--in this case specifically related to historicity--are mostly legitimate. There are still social, theological, lifestyle, and moral concerns to deal with. And even if the evidences are legitimate, it doesn't mean that they have to compel belief. If I researched information about ancient aliens and found a piece of evidence which no naturalistic explanation could currently account for and which seemed to support their claims, I would probably just shelf it. It would take a lot of this type of evidence to even begin to incline me to believe. And this is because of my bias. I think the fib we sometimes tell ourselves is that the reason we don't believe certain claims we personally haven't studied is because they are obviously false or untrue. That is almost never the case. The reason is that we are all biased. And our universal propensity for bias should probably bring us all a good deal more humility and open mindedness than most of us have. 2
smac97 Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: Again, I don't think critics care about whether or not you can identify a Nephite quarter in a bag of Mayan quarters. The question is, does anything in the bag support your claims? Maybe. There's no present way to tell. That is the point Hamblin is raising. There are other types of evidence about the Book of Mormon, however, that are testable. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: We should probably go to his original request. The way you've worded it misses a lot of the substance. Jenkins asked: "Can anyone cite any single credible fact, object, site, or inscription from the New World that supports any one story found in the Book of Mormon?" He's not asking specifically for anything Nephite, Jaredite or Mulekite. He's asking for any one fact that supports any story found in the Book of Mormon. If you think you have something that could qualify as a single credible fact, object, site, or inscription from the New World that supports any one story found in the Book of Mormon, then we can discuss here. It doesn't even have to be Nephite, it could be Mayan, or Toltec or Olmec or whatever. Okay. Let's start with sheum. Thanks, -Smac
jkwilliams Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 13 minutes ago, smac97 said: Okay. Let's start with sheum. Thanks, -Smac I didn't realize there was New World evidence for sheum. Am I missing something?
Ryan Dahle Posted June 28, 2018 Author Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) 22 minutes ago, smac97 said: Okay. Let's start with sheum. Thanks, 8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: 22 minutes ago, smac97 said: Okay. Let's start with sheum. Thanks, -Smac I didn't realize there was New World evidence for sheum. Am I missing something? The strongest linguistic argument for sheum, as being Akkadian for various types of grain, has been disputed by some LDS linguists. https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/SHEUM A much better singular evidence, specifically Mesoamerican related, would be Kerry Hull's insights into the title of liberty as a Mesoamerican war banner. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1570&context=jbms In this case, what the Book of Mormon describes as well as the way it describes it, makes especially good sense in an ancient Mesoamerican context. Is this single piece of evidence a smoking gun? No. But it is strong. Edited June 28, 2018 by Ryan Dahle 1
Recommended Posts