Analytics Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: QED? Another cop out cum ad hominem. I cut my teeth on C. P. Snow, Bertrand Russell, and the best scientific philosophers, and have no problem with any of that (including Quantum mechanics), but you completely misconceive the nature of philosophical inquiry if you approach it with the automatic assumption that everyone associated with a particular tradition of belief is therefore deeply tainted by that belief-system and cannot extricate themselves from it -- thus requiring that we flop around in a muddy slough of despond. I see no commitment on your part to the actual scholarly discussion of religious belief. Instead you seem to be making excuses why you can never deal with the hard questions -- due to your a priori belief that no religious system can be meaningfully discussed. In my book, all systems of belief are equally subject to searching inquiry, including your very narrow beliefs (C. P. Snow lamented that bifurcation into Two Cultures). So, the only concern you find relevant is presumably the existence of, say, Methodist sunday school manuals which teach nice Christian principles, and must therefore be the sole and only source of Methodist theology. That would. come as a surprise to the Wesleys, who had far more substantive issues in mind for their new version of Anglicanism -- including free will. Theology is just not discussed in sunday school -- not by Mormons and not by Methodists. Scholars know the difference. Why don't you? The official purpose of the LDS Church is "to bring to pass the salvation and exaltation of His children" (https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-principles/2.2?lang=eng&_r=1#22 ). The three-fold mission of the LDS Church is 1. proclaim the gospel, 2. perfect the Saints, and 3. redeem the dead. (https://history.lds.org/event/three-fold-mission-of-church?lang=eng ) Praxis is the focus of church organizaton and sunday school manuals, not theology. I am an anthropologist, and that academic discipline does indeed take the view that "all cultures are equally fascinating and virtuous and try to describe everything with nonjudgmental wonder and appreciation." That is not mere pretense, but rather a respectful approach to the manifold cultures of humankind. So, when you have finished with your contemptuous and reptilian ad hominems, you might want to seriously consider the substantive issues with dispassionate scientific detachment. That is how scholars approach the hard questions. Can you? I have been waiting for you to take the gloves off, and have so far been very disappointed in your lack of analytics. You seem far more interested in unrelated side issues. Taking a step back, Ryan Dahle basically asked why secular evidences of the Book of Mormon being a literal historical document are generally ignored by just about everybody who isn't into apologetics as a hobby. That's the topic of this thread. I've tried to engage that question, not to engage into a "scholarly" discussion of the Mormon religion from some ivory tower. The world since 9/11, including the emergence of the religious right as a political force, has made me reconsider whether the academic approach of being saccharinely gracious to all religions at all times is really the right thing to do. I have a ton of respect for Mormon individuals and the Mormon community as people. But if we are going to have frank discussions about what is actually true, I am going to try to be honest and clear. Will that offend some people? Sure. But I take solace in knowing that Ralph Waldo Emerson would approve.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, Analytics said: Just to make sure I understand what you are saying, here is an example of an alleged anachronism of Christianity in the Book of Mormon: 13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel. 14 But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me. (2 Nephi 31: 13-14) To me, the comprehensive message here sounds like Christianity and it sounds distinct from what somebody from Jerusalem in 545 BC would have plausibly believed. And it will always sound that way to you as long as you make the automatic apriori assumption that the KJV of the Bible was translated by just one guy who used uniform phraseology throughout, and that the Hebrew and Septuagint texts of the OT are identical in every way, and that Dr Margaret Barker (a Methodist) is wrong about the nature of the Deuteronomistic reforms which purged the apparent pre-Christian views from Judaism (but which continued to be maintained by sectarian groups on down to the Essenes and early Christians). In evaluating the Book of Mormon, Dr Barker said: Quote “This revelation to Joseph Smith is the ancient wisdom symbolism, intact, and almost certainly as it was known in 600 BCE.” -- Barker, “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” paper delivered in 2005, at Library of Congress in Washington, DC., published in J. Welch, ed., The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress (Provo: BYU Press, 2006), 69-82. 4 minutes ago, Analytics said: And it sounds like you are arguing, "no, this Pauline Christianity didn't exist in 545 BC--that would be silly. It only appears to be Christianity as an artifact of the translation process. What was really being taught was something much closer to Judaism, where "repent of your sins" is a confusing translation of "don't engrave any images," and "follow your Lord and Savior down into the water" is a confusing translation of "circumcise your newborn males on the eighth day," etc. If you master the way these ancient languages are translated, the apparent anachronisms disappear! That isn't really your point, is it? For those who do not know that repentance is the heart and soul of Judaism, and who don't know that Jews believe that they are saved by grace, it may seem that way. Jeremiah even speaks of the Gospel (“good tidings” in Jer 23:5, 33:15; Isaiah 52:7 again!), as well as the replacing of circumcision of the flesh by a new heart (Jer 4:4, 9:26; Romans 3:25-29) – all centuries before any inkling of the coming forth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Anachronisms? Since separate committees translated the diverse parts of the KJV Bible, we do not get the coherence we do when we understand the actual Hebrew and Greek. Then we realize that there is great continuity from OT to NT. You and Gray are blind to it. 2
jkwilliams Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said: And it will always sound that way to you as long as you make the automatic apriori assumption that the KJV of the Bible was translated by just one guy who used uniform phraseology throughout, and that the Hebrew and Septuagint texts of the OT are identical in every way, and that Dr Margaret Barker (a Methodist) is wrong about the nature of the Deuteronomistic reforms which purged the apparent pre-Christian views from Judaism (but which continued to be maintained by sectarian groups on down to the Essenes and early Christians). In evaluating the Book of Mormon, Dr Barker said: For those who do not know that repentance is the heart and soul of Judaism, and who don't know that Jews believe that they are saved by grace, it may seem that way. Jeremiah even speaks of the Gospel (“good tidings” in Jer 23:5, 33:15; Isaiah 52:7 again!), as well as the replacing of circumcision of the flesh by a new heart (Jer 4:4, 9:26; Romans 3:25-29) – all centuries before any inkling of the coming forth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Anachronisms? Since separate committees translated the diverse parts of the KJV Bible, we do not get the coherence we do when we understand the actual Hebrew and Greek. Then we realize that there is great continuity from OT to NT. You and Gray are blind to it. I guess I always saw the NT writers as deliberately using Old Testament imagery and passages to make the new covenant more understandable to potential converts. The writers of the gospels go to great pains to link Jesus' birth with Old Testament prophecies. For example, Terry Eagleton has suggested that the census method described by Luke makes no sense except as a reason to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, as the prophecies had said he would. Is he right? I don't know, but it seems pretty clear that there was an effort to tie the Christian gospel back to the earlier scriptures, as you show pretty clearly in your post above. I guess the question is whether that reflects an attempt to link backward or a restoration of pre-exilic Judaism. Barker apparently believes the latter. 2
CA Steve Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 This has been a most enlightening thread. For some reason, the more I read this thread them more I am reminded of the Anthon transcript story.
clarkgoble Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, Analytics said: Jenkin's point wasn't that non-mainstream academic research isn't worth serious investigation. His point is that before the lay public should take something seriously, the proponents of the non-mainstream research needs to convince the experts in the field take it seriously. I think this is right and in large measure I don't think apologists have done this. I think there are solid reasons for this, which is why I think Hamblin just took the wrong track from the beginning in how he responded to Jenkins. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: But that aside, I think Jenkins did successfully demonstrate that mainstream scholarship doesn't acknowledge the existence of ancient Book of Mormon Studies as a recognized field. And I think he successfully demonstrated that the apologists really haven't made a serious attempt to present their arguments to the relevant experts. Instead, they just talk to each other and interested laymen in their own little bubble. Again, I actually agree with Jenkins on this part and was surprised at some of Hamblin's approaches to the argument. I think Hamblin would have been far wiser to make clear the philosophical aims of apologists. (Again I didn't read the whole debate and most of what I've read I've forgotten - so it's possible I'm misrepresenting him here) All that said, I'm not sure they are just in their own little bubble - or if they are there are a surprising number of critics like Vogel and company and arguably even Jenkins himself who are interested in that bubble. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: My point is that those contemporary views of mind you refer to are the ones I'm interested in. I'm less interested in people who think narratives of NDEs are compelling proof of Cartesian dualism. Right and I guess I'm saying you should read a wider swath of writing on these if you think Sean Carroll's stance is the only defensible one. (Unless you're backing off from that claim - see below) BTW - I always found NDEs a horrible defense for Cartesianism given that Cartesian minds are supposed to be immaterial and thus not have "place." Yet the defining characteristic of purported NDEs is that you have a specific place and even angle of perceptions. So if anything NDEs are an argument against Cartesianism. The Evangelical William Craig keeps using NDEs to defend his Cartesianism and I've never understood why. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: All I've really said in that regard is that in principle, the arguments I'm most receptive to are the ones that are consistent with the details of known science. You clearly have a bone to pick with Sean Carroll, and you somehow assume I'm a naïve adherent to "scientism" because I find his measured approach to evaluating the evidence appealing. My bone was more or less your comment a few pages back that if people accepted science they'd accept the implications and believe like Carroll and be an atheist. I like Carroll a lot and it's interesting how even he's backed away a bit from string theory. I used to regularly read his blog before it became a bit too repetitive. However more or less my only qualm isn't with Carroll but that you appeared to think that the only way to embrace science. The only reason I raise names like Penrose, Dyson, or others is to highlight the diversity of views - not to argue one of them is correct. If you don't think that then I really have no problem. I have no problem with atheism so long as people don't (like many New Atheists do) think that the only rational position to take given the evidence. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: And as far as I know, to date nobody has provided a theory of mind that allows for a premortal existence, spirit world, Holy Ghost, resurrection, etc., that is consistent with Quantum Mechanics, nor have they provided a coherent theory that expands Quantum Mechanics to include the possibility of those things. That's fairly trivial to do. I'm surprised that's your hang up. Consider the broad position of non-computationalist functionalists. (Here computation means those who think a complex computer program can product mind) A good example of this type of functionalist would be John Searle who's written a fair bit on mind. (He's famous for his Chinese Room thought experiment) This type of functionalism doesn't necessarily think only animal brains can produce mind, but thinks some material items are needed to produce mind based upon their function. This obviously includes a wide assortments of different views of mind. One type of functionalism would be again Roger Penrose's which sees a moment of mind as arising out of the collapse of the wave equation for a quantum state. While this isn't the only position among physicists (multiple worlds is actually among the more popular surprisingly) it is a major one albeit not usually pushed as far as Penrose puts it. As I mentioned there is an empirical way to get quantum states via nanotubuals in neurons and some fair empirical evidence for anesthesia working in that fashion when it ceases conscious perception. Indeed there's a major paper in the main journal Anesthesiology last month on just that. "Anesthetic Action and “Quantum Consciousness”: A Match Made in Olive Oil" (The olive oil bit is significant because it turns out the chemicals that act as consciousness halting anesthesia are all soluble in oil but not water and that the degree of solubility ends up related to their effect on consciousness) However even just speaking of functionalism broadly speaking and not Penrose's theory of quantum computing and consciousness so long as something material has those functions then it can have consciousness. You'd then need the following: material substrate for a conscious "soul" (I put that in quotes since Mormonism doesn't necessarily embrace a traditional soul - for instance Brigham Young was a physicalist who thought souls could be destroyed and were made out of physical parts) functional equivalent parts that existed prior to birth and after death (I'm being as broad as possible here - all that's needed is some causal and historical connection to the brain) So if one embraces Penrose/Hameroff like solutions (not necessarily their particular ontology but perhaps their broad mechanism) then you've pretty well explained how the Mormon conception of the soul is possible. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: So maybe there really is a ghost in the machine and that's it. In principle I'm open to that, but such a view contradicts Quantum Mechanics as it is presently understood. Again, not to be pedantic but we have to be careful to distinguish between "there isn't public evidence for X" from "X contradicts our well established theories." My sense is you're conflating the two. However if you actually do think there's a contradiction could you clearly explain what it is? 4 hours ago, Analytics said: But science can tell us some things. Science robustly tells us that human beings are inherently part of life on earth--we came about as a species over eons through a process of natural selection, just like every other species. Mormonism (at least as taught by the Prophets, Apostles, and Correlation Committees of the LDS Church) tell us that we are not a part of the animal kingdom--that we are not like other animals--that we are the literal descendants of a God of flesh and bones who is unrelated to life on earth, except as a mastermind creator. Again while several prominent GAs have rejected evolution you're making a stronger claim above than I've even seen the strongest anti-evolutionists like Joseph Fielding Smith or Bruce R. McConkie make. Certainly there have been prominent figures like Talmage and others who've adopting much more compatible views. As for the claim humans aren't animals, that certainly is incompatible with what we know of DNA but I've not seen anyone making that claim. Although it's been so long since I read JFS's anti-evolutionary writings from the 50's that I missed it. (And of course that was from before the discovery of DNA) I'm not away of any GA of the last 25 years making such claims - including those distrustful of evolution like Packer or Nelson. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: I'm not going to argue the ultimate truth of the matter here, much less tell you what you believe or should believe. But the contradiction between what science says and Mormonism says on this topic is dramatic. Again I'm not sure why manual writers and which GAs they choose to quote defines Mormonism. I have no problem saying they're wrong to the degree they contradict what seemed reasonably established in science. I'm sure you know many GAs disagree with such things. I just don't think JFS and BRM get to define what is Mormon even if they had an outsized influence in the mid to late 20th century. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: You are the ones that say people worry about things that aren't related to science. My position is that the real world is in the purview of science. So if people are worrying about things that aren't within the purview of science, what are they worrying about? That's the entirety of my point. Nearly everything people worry about isn't really scientific. Even if you try to broadly apply psychology and sociology to such concerns typically they aren't able to get at the core issues of love, ethics, and so forth. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: Have you read The Moral Landscape by everyone's favorite scientismist? He argues that while there are a few fundamental axioms that necessarily go beyond what science could possibly tell us, in general ethics is a question about the wellbeing of sentient people and animals. If we can generally agree on (what should be uncontroversial) philosophical grounds what wellbeing basically is and that we should promote it, science can tell us a lot about things like ethics. I've not read Harris' book but I've read Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil and a fair number of cognitive science and evolutionary psychology books related to the same thing. (I've read about Harris' take quite a bit including essays and responses by Harris - but most discussions make me think it's not worth the effort to read) The main problem is they confuse descriptions of what people do with ethics. That is they ignore (or in Harris' case deny) Hume's recognition that "is can't imply ought." To the degree they actually think science can do this (Shermer is actually more careful than Harris from what I understand) all they're really doing is saying there aren't ethics at all merely useful behaviors. Most reviews note that Harris is neglectful of what's been discussed in the philosophy of ethics for centuries. What Harris ends up being after is consequentialism even if he rejects the Utilitarian form. But he kind of overlooks a lot of the ontological issues involved and ends up with a kind of naive form of consequentialism. I should add that I'm very sympathetic to consequentialism even if I don't think it can really do the job it wants to. Further Harris never really engages in the traditional critiques of consequentialism. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: In terms of worrying about the business cycle, science can help us create and calibrate stochastic models so we can minimize the financial risk associated with daily business cycles, and from there evaluate stress scenarios and consider black swan events. I was careful to not claim economics is useless just that it can't do all the things people want it to be able to do. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: No less fair than dismissing my thoughts as "scientism" that is not only naive, but also dangerous. As I said, I was reacting to your claim, "If you strictly believed normative science, you would be an atheist and your beliefs would be like Sean Carroll's." If you no longer hold to that I'll take back the scientism charge. <grin> Edited June 28, 2018 by clarkgoble 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, Analytics said: Taking a step back, Ryan Dahle basically asked why secular evidences of the Book of Mormon being a literal historical document are generally ignored by just about everybody who isn't into apologetics as a hobby. That's the topic of this thread. I've tried to engage that question, not to engage into a "scholarly" discussion of the Mormon religion from some ivory tower. That was the OP. So are you insisting on riding your hobby horse instead of conducting a scholarly inquiry into the fundamental bases of a particular religion? Might derail this thread to do otherwise . . . Quote The world since 9/11, including the emergence of the religious right as a political force, has made me reconsider whether the academic approach of being saccharinely gracious to all religions at all times is really the right thing to do. I have a ton of respect for Mormon individuals and the Mormon community as people. But if we are going to have frank discussions about what is actually true, I am going to try to be honest and clear. Will that offend some people? Sure. But I take solace in knowing that Ralph Waldo Emerson would approve. Are you taking Emerson as a Transcendentalist or Romantic (like Joseph Smith -- see on his Romantic legacy, Terryl Givens, “‘Lightning Out of Heaven’: Joseph Smith and the Forging of Community,” BYU Studies, 45/1 (2006):4-23, online at https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol45/iss1/1/ . Edited June 29, 2018 by Robert F. Smith
hope_for_things Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Thanks. Take a look at Kevin's comment above. I suggest you look up the Perry Scheme. It seems I looked at it once when Kevin recommended it to me, so I'll have to check it out again. It seems to me that Kevin is also arguing that its unfair that apologetic arguments aren't taken more seriously by broader Mormon studies audiences. I don't know if its unfair as much its caused by the way apologists write which caters to a particular audience, but doesn't work for broader scholarly audiences. They are called the old guard for a reason. The Maxwell Institute has pivoted away from this style of writing for a reason. These reasons aren't unfair, they are just reality, either adjust to the reality, or feel picked on and complain about it.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I guess I always saw the NT writers as deliberately using Old Testament imagery and passages to make the new covenant more understandable to potential converts. The writers of the gospels go to great pains to link Jesus' birth with Old Testament prophecies. For example, Terry Eagleton has suggested that the census method described by Luke makes no sense except as a reason to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, as the prophecies had said he would. Is he right? I don't know, but it seems pretty clear that there was an effort to tie the Christian gospel back to the earlier scriptures, as you show pretty clearly in your post above. I guess the question is whether that reflects an attempt to link backward or a restoration of pre-exilic Judaism. Barker apparently believes the latter. All very true. If we were to formulate a quiz with questions such as Does the OT speak specifically of the "Gospel?" or Does the OT speak of a new heart replacing circumcision? Nearly everyone would flunk. However, Jewish scholars now openly admit that the hunt for a Messiah began long before the birth of Jesus: Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Berkeley: U.C. Press, 2000). Michael O. Wise, The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Christ (S.F.: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999). In addition, hardly anyone realizes that Christian liturgy is really Jewish liturgy. 1
mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) Oops Edited June 29, 2018 by mfbukowski 1
cinepro Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: Generally speaking, I think that other evidences are typically more persuasive, but these types of correspondences, especially when looked as as a whole, aren't without merit. One can always propose that Joseph got these ideas from some place or another, which in most cases he could, but just because he could possibly have put all this stuff together in one document, it doesn't mean that was likely for him to do. I think Analytics already pointed it out, but you forgot the first step to evaluating Book of Mormon evidences. The process is described in the well known "Cinepro Method for Knowing if the Book of Mormon is True by Evaluating the Evidence." Cinepro Method for Knowing if The Book of Mormon Is True By Evaluating the Evidence. Step 1: Firmly believe The Book of Mormon is true. Step 2: There is no step two. If you follow Step 1 correctly, every evidence will show that it is true. Step 3: Why are you still reading? If you still don't think The Book of Mormon is true, go back and follow Step 1. I think a lot of Hamblin's frustration with Jenkins (and your frustration with those who don't "engage the evidence") is that they don't follow this simple method. I mean, it's not rocket science, and it's worked for over 180 years. You might doubt that my method actually works, or think it's a joke, but I can prove it works. Because it doesn't just work for The Book of Mormon. It works for almost anything. It's like magic. As for the list of evidences, it still has the same problems so many "evidences" do. First, if something ties The Book of Mormon back to the ancient Middle East, that's interesting, but it's not evidence for it taking place in ancient America. At best, it's an inferential argument. I wouldn't fault a scholar of Ancient America for being unimpressed. Second, most of those are "what are the odds?" arguments. And so in order to actually make the argument, you need to tell us what the odds are. Otherwise, you're simply saying "Wow, this appears to be really unlikely, therefore it is evidence of an angel and all the other claims of the book being true. Why don't they present this at academic conferences?" Because if you actually work out the odds and then factor in the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, you may find that many of the "evidences" really aren't that unexpected, and may even be expected in a 19th century creation. 2
Rajah Manchou Posted June 29, 2018 Posted June 29, 2018 5 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: The other night, a segment on Trevor Noah had an interviewer asking Trumpians about what the Space Force would do. Not awe inspiring... ) "NASA only tells us what they want us to know, where as Trump will tell us The Truth" •͡˘㇁•͡˘
kllindley Posted June 29, 2018 Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, Analytics said: 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. This strikes me as very inconsistent with your prior post about the difference between critical scholarship and theology being so entirely separate. Edit: I am so sorry. I mistakenly thought that this was Gray's post. I do think it relates to an earlier comment that people arguing against Mormon evidence are NOT on the same team. Edited June 29, 2018 by kllindley
Rajah Manchou Posted June 29, 2018 Posted June 29, 2018 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: In evaluating the Book of Mormon, Dr Barker said: “This revelation to Joseph Smith is the ancient wisdom symbolism, intact, and almost certainly as it was known in 600 BCE.” -- Barker, “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” paper delivered in 2005, at Library of Congress in Washington, DC., published in J. Welch, ed., The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress (Provo: BYU Press, 2006), 69-82. Would be great to see more engagement with this sort of material. How many more threads about horses and swords must we suffer? 2
kllindley Posted June 29, 2018 Posted June 29, 2018 10 hours ago, Gray said: 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. Are you seriously suggesting that Margaret Barker is not a critical scholar but an apologist? Can you cute any critical scholarship that asserts there was no Christianity in the BC?
Robert F. Smith Posted June 29, 2018 Posted June 29, 2018 6 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: Would be great to see more engagement with this sort of material. How many more threads about horses and swords must we suffer? Well, Rajah, at least you make an effort to lift us out of that horrible miasma.
jkwilliams Posted June 29, 2018 Posted June 29, 2018 2 minutes ago, kllindley said: Are you seriously suggesting that Margaret Barker is not a critical scholar but an apologist? Can you cute any critical scholarship that asserts there was no Christianity in the BC? I don’t think she’s an apologist, but her views are a little outside the mainstream.
Hamba Tuhan Posted June 29, 2018 Posted June 29, 2018 10 hours ago, Gray said: 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. It appears her work may be a bit more frequently cited than you've presumed. 3
Popular Post Rajah Manchou Posted June 29, 2018 Popular Post Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Well, Rajah, at least you make an effort to lift us out of that horrible miasma. Let me try again. Barker says in "Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion” that: "the extraordinary similarity between the History of the Rechabites (the Narrative of Zosimus) and the story of Lehi leaving Jerusalem has already been studied by Mormon scholars. This ancient text, which survives in Greek, Syriac, and Ethiopic, tells the story of some people who left Jerusalem about 600 bce and went to live in a blessed land. They did not drink wine. They were called the sons of Rechab, which could mean that he was their ancestor, or it could be the Hebrew way of saying they were temple servants, priests who served the divine throne. In their blessed land, angels had announced to them the incarnation of the Word of God from the Holy Virgin who is the Mother of God. Nobody can explain this text." Where do LDS scholars propose these Rechabites went? Where was this blessed land that was inhabited by Israelites that left Jerusalem in the 6th century BC? Is it a fiction or a fact, or some mix of both? Non-Mormon scholars have proposed physical real-world locations set in history, why haven't we engaged the evidence? Edited June 29, 2018 by Rajah Manchou 6
Robert F. Smith Posted June 29, 2018 Posted June 29, 2018 1 hour ago, cinepro said: I think Analytics already pointed it out, but you forgot the first step to evaluating Book of Mormon evidences. The process is described in the well known "Cinepro Method for Knowing if the Book of Mormon is True by Evaluating the Evidence." Cinepro Method for Knowing if The Book of Mormon Is True By Evaluating the Evidence. Step 1: Firmly believe The Book of Mormon is true. Step 2: There is no step two. If you follow Step 1 correctly, every evidence will show that it is true. Step 3: Why are you still reading? If you still don't think The Book of Mormon is true, go back and follow Step 1................ You might doubt that my method actually works, or think it's a joke, but I can prove it works. Because it doesn't just work for The Book of Mormon. It works for almost anything. It's like magic. This is very clever, cinepro, and it does make me smile, because it is the method used by many people who are not otherwise capable of evaluating anything anyhow. But is this what we expect of a rural and ignorant county sheriff when he has to evaluate the evidence at a crime scene? Because whatever else it is, it isn't science or logic, and does not partake of professional criminalistics. In such a case, a lynch mob mentality prevails. All the more reason not to begin with an apriori assumption of either truth or falsity. One needs to be prepared to be surprised, and to allow the evidence to speak for itself. 1 hour ago, cinepro said: I think a lot of Hamblin's frustration with Jenkins (and your frustration with those who don't "engage the evidence") is that they don't follow this simple method. I mean, it's not rocket science, and it's worked for over 180 years. Jenkins was frustrating because he never really was willing to address the hard issues. He talked around them, hemmed and hawwed, and engaged in an avoidance response. We get the same from Analytics. 1 hour ago, cinepro said: As for the list of evidences, it still has the same problems so many "evidences" do. First, if something ties The Book of Mormon back to the ancient Middle East, that's interesting, but it's not evidence for it taking place in ancient America. At best, it's an inferential argument. I wouldn't fault a scholar of Ancient America for being unimpressed. Second, most of those are "what are the odds?" arguments. And so in order to actually make the argument, you need to tell us what the odds are. Otherwise, you're simply saying "Wow, this appears to be really unlikely, therefore it is evidence of an angel and all the other claims of the book being true. Why don't they present this at academic conferences?" Because if you actually work out the odds and then factor in the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, you may find that many of the "evidences" really aren't that unexpected, and may even be expected in a 19th century creation. All good points, cinepro. We mustn't depend only on mere inference, and on estimating the odds, although they do both play a role in evaluation of historical questions. Any detective worth his salt is going to follow up on hunches, and he will certainly play the odds in deciding who the most likely suspects are. From then on a combination of psychologizing and of Socratic dialogue may help narrow things down. There are plenty of analogies to criminal investigations in regular historical inquiry. There are many helpful steps, and we should not be cavalierly contemptuous of any of them.
jkwilliams Posted June 29, 2018 Posted June 29, 2018 3 hours ago, cinepro said: I think Analytics already pointed it out, but you forgot the first step to evaluating Book of Mormon evidences. The process is described in the well known "Cinepro Method for Knowing if the Book of Mormon is True by Evaluating the Evidence." Cinepro Method for Knowing if The Book of Mormon Is True By Evaluating the Evidence. Step 1: Firmly believe The Book of Mormon is true. Step 2: There is no step two. If you follow Step 1 correctly, every evidence will show that it is true. Step 3: Why are you still reading? If you still don't think The Book of Mormon is true, go back and follow Step 1. I think a lot of Hamblin's frustration with Jenkins (and your frustration with those who don't "engage the evidence") is that they don't follow this simple method. I mean, it's not rocket science, and it's worked for over 180 years. You might doubt that my method actually works, or think it's a joke, but I can prove it works. Because it doesn't just work for The Book of Mormon. It works for almost anything. It's like magic. As for the list of evidences, it still has the same problems so many "evidences" do. First, if something ties The Book of Mormon back to the ancient Middle East, that's interesting, but it's not evidence for it taking place in ancient America. At best, it's an inferential argument. I wouldn't fault a scholar of Ancient America for being unimpressed. Second, most of those are "what are the odds?" arguments. And so in order to actually make the argument, you need to tell us what the odds are. Otherwise, you're simply saying "Wow, this appears to be really unlikely, therefore it is evidence of an angel and all the other claims of the book being true. Why don't they present this at academic conferences?" Because if you actually work out the odds and then factor in the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, you may find that many of the "evidences" really aren't that unexpected, and may even be expected in a 19th century creation. At first glance this sounds a bit cynical, but then you and I have been around this for, what, 15 years. How many people have we seen (including ourselves) who once found this stuff compelling or at least plausible, only to conclude in the end there wasn’t anything there? Some of the most committed apologists such as Kerry Shirts, Kevin Graham, and Paul Osborne have long since thrown in the towel. I had my first beer with someone who used to post alongside me defending the church here. I’ve had people contact me to tell me that they no longer believe but still participate in apologetics for different reasons. I wouldn’t name names, but it’s a safe bet that some of the apologists here now will someday cross that line. I think you’re right that much of the reason people find these evidences compelling is simply their desire to believe. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 29, 2018 Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) On 6/24/2018 at 8:00 PM, Gray said: I think growing up in the church we often miss the biggest, most glaring anachronism of them all: fully developed, protestant-style Christianity hundreds of years before Jesus' birth. Most of those finding this to be an anachronism do so as a result of not knowing the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible. However, this problem is not even limited to Mormons: Among scholars, there has always been some disquiet with the "Christianization" of the Old Testament by normative Christianity. Not only Jesus himself, but his immediate followers regularly interpreted everything done by him as the direct fulfillment of OT prophecy, and later Christian theology was formulated in that specific light. However, not only is early Christian literature shot through with direct quotations and allusions to the OT, but those same early Jewish Christians -- even as they eventually separated from normative Judaism -- carried on with their Jewish liturgy (including temple symbolism in their cathedrals), and saw their Church as the true Israel. Even without supersession (it is not present in the Book of Mormon),[1] is this fair to Judaism? Non-Mormon scholar Robert Morgan says that Quote there is nothing unreasonable about a Christian biblical theology which selects OT material and interprets it in the light of the event to which Christians believe it ultimately bears witness.[2] Indeed, non-Mormon scholar Werner Lemke goes even further: Quote Because of Christianity's origin in a specifically Jewish milieu, an understanding of the OT is essential for a proper understanding of the NT and of the gospel. The history of the early Church is incomprehensible apart from Jewish antecedents, and the literature of the NT presupposes knowledge of the language and thought-world of the OT.[3] Given that we now know that such early Christian symbolism and interpretation (as well as organization) was likewise characteristic of earlier Jewish sectarian groups,[4] it is now widely accepted that one cannot understand Jesus Christ or Christianity without a thorough grounding in Judaism.[5] [1] Steven Epperson, "Some Problems with Supersessionism in Mormon Thought: A Review Essay," BYU Studies, 34/4 (1994-95):125-136; Epperson, Mormons and Jews: Early Mormon Theologies of Israel (SLC: Signature, 1992); Seymour Cain, "Judaism and Mormonism: Paradigm and Supersession," Dialogue, 25/3 (1992):57-65. [2] Morgan, "Theology (NT)," in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, VI:482, citing F. Mussner, Tractate on the Jews (1984). [3] Lemke, "Theology (OT)," in D. Freedman, ed., ABD, VI:471. [4] Michael O. Wise, The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Christ (S.F.: Harper SanFrancisco, 1999); Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Berkeley: U.C. Press, 2000). [5] Walter P. Weaver, "Introduction," in J. H. Charlesworth and W. P. Weaver, eds., The Old and the New Testaments: Their Relationship and the "Intertestamental" Literature, Faith and Scholarship Colloquies (Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1993), 3-4,13-14,17, and n. 1, citing James Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism (Doubleday, 1988), and E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Phila.: Fortress Press, 1985); cf. Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity (N.Y.: Knopf, 1999); Amy-Jill Levine, “Jesus Who?” Moment, 27/4 (Aug 2002):48-54,74-75. Edited June 29, 2018 by Robert F. Smith
Calm Posted June 29, 2018 Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) If remains of horses were found during the right time period, is that evidence tied to the BoM? Or does it just count as removal of an anachronism? Just curious of how it would be seen. Edited June 29, 2018 by Calm 3
Ryan Dahle Posted June 29, 2018 Author Posted June 29, 2018 3 hours ago, Calm said: If remains of horses were found during the right time period, is that evidence tied to the BoM? Or does it just count as removal of an anachronism? Just curious of how it would be seen. It really depends on how widespread the idea was in Joseph Smith's day that horses weren't present in pre-Columbian America. I can't remember, off the top of my head, if that was what was believed then or not, or if it was, how widespread. If it is something Joseph Smith would likely have known and believed, then it could be argued that Joseph Smith was making a bold prediction by placing horses that early in America. If it is not likely something he would have known or believed, then it has little apologetic value on that front. However, it still would be apologetically significant because it would reinforce the major problems with "absence of evidence" arguments discussing flora or fauna (and lots of other stuff) in ancient America. The presence of horses in the Book of Mormon has probably been the most popularly touted "anachronism" that it contains. A major reversal on this issue would surely be used by apologists as the flagship argument when it comes to other alleged anachronisms. If Wade Miller or someone else produces hard evidence for horses, and if this evidence is accepted by the larger scientific community, then it would show that major discoveries are still possible well into the 21st century. What will be next? How many reversed anachronisms does it take before critics stop using them as "proof" that the Book of Mormon is false? So the real significance would be on the "defensive" apologetics side. It would only be "offensive" in the sense that it may humiliate critics who have squawked about if for so long, a so derisively. At least that's my take. 2
Gray Posted June 29, 2018 Posted June 29, 2018 11 hours ago, kllindley said: Are you seriously suggesting that Margaret Barker is not a critical scholar but an apologist? Can you cute any critical scholarship that asserts there was no Christianity in the BC? I'm suggesting she's on the fringes of critical scholarship. I'm not suggesting that none of her work has value, but she doesn't represent a school of thought or a movement. She's out on her own. But it is a hallmark of apologetics to hone in narrowly on some scholarship (including fringe scholarship) that can be used to support one's religious views, at the exclusion of mainstream scholarship which does not support one's religious views.
Gray Posted June 29, 2018 Posted June 29, 2018 20 hours ago, clarkgoble said: While it's fair to disagree with her, I'm not sure you can say she's obscure or fringe. She was after all awarded the the Doctor of Divinity by the Archbishop of Cantebury. That's a pretty prestigious award. While I'm somewhat leery of how some apologists have made use of her work, I don't think one can dismiss her as fringe. A criticism one can make is that her background is more theology than history. While I'm not a big Barker devotee, I believe she got her degree in theology from Cambridge. I'm not saying her work has no merit, but she does seem to be way out on the fringes. Is anyone out there making similar arguments to her? I agree, her work seems more theological than historical. However, that's not much of a statement - that's based on reading summaries only.
Recommended Posts