champatsch Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 Let's suppose Joseph was the author. He was absolutely impressive in his philological achievement. Achievement #1: more-part phraseology. He gave us 26 of these in the 1829 dictation, four variants. The majority variant is "the more part of X". The King James Bible has two instances of "the more part", that's it, in the book of Acts. That is what Joseph had to work off of. Except for the common variant (see below), he innovated slightly and followed Coverdale's 1535 phraseology with a following PP, "the more part of them" (Acts 27:12), every time (the PP varies). Plus, he produced one example of the very rare variant "a more part of X"; three others are currently known, the last one in 1579 (bare "a more part"). Plus, he produced the rare variant "the more parts of X" twice.; eight others are currently known. Plus, he produced two of the common variant "for the more part" = 'mostly', at 1 Nephi 9:4. This one carried into the modern period in decreasing fashion. One has to go back to the 1577 Tudor history, Holinshed's Chronicles, to find a text with Book of Mormon levels of more-part phraseology in it. For rate of use, one has to go back to 1550, and a translation of Thucydides. Pseudo-biblical texts don't have this usage. Joseph far surpassed the Oxford historian Edward Freeman, the medievalist William Morris, and Robert Louis Stevenson in his more-part usage.
clarkgoble Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 (edited) 32 minutes ago, champatsch said: It's unlikely the dictation would have proceeded as it did, and that the original manuscript would look like it does, if the process had been a matter of Joseph querying the Lord repeatedly whether his wording was accurate. I don't think that's the argument though. The issue is more about Joseph thinking and grasping to fit concepts/words to the revelation. The idea being that he needs to get something accessed so that it can affect the translation. Some kind of conscious involvement is implicated even if we don't know what it's function was. Although I do admit Spencer's argument is interesting as well. 47 minutes ago, cinepro said: I think we'll be surprised to find what is and isn't "negotiable" over the next few decades. Quite possibly although everyone always expects the unexpected with confirm their expectations somehow. 47 minutes ago, cinepro said: I would also suggest that, to the degree you would argue that a belief in a local or allegorical flood is somehow accepted or tolerated in the Church, you are foreshadowing the same pattern and thought processes that will be used to create space and acceptance for an allegorical or non-historical belief in The Book of Mormon. As you show, the first thing to do will be to get people to think that Book of Mormon historicity isn't "central to our religion." I'm not sure that's analogous. One case is about the accuracy of a narrow scriptural interpretation. The other is about the entire grounds of a scripture. Further as I've noted before if the Book of Mormon is allegorical and fiction that completely undermines many messages in the text. I'd add that in one case the text in question is the Old Testament which was considered corrupt in some ways by Nephi (and which later historians tended to fill in as it was largely seen as a post-exilic creation). So there are lots of reasons to be skeptical of the Old Testament even if historically most Mormons gave it the benefit of doubt. Doing that with the Book of Mormon is more problematic. 40 minutes ago, cinepro said: What makes you think Moroni didn't explicitly state where things took place? Joseph's shifts of belief over where it took place. I'm sure Moroni gave some vague information but honestly at least to my eyes much of what Joseph says seems inferred. Again I'm open to Joseph's early views being correct it's just that all the evidence seems to go against it. I've just not seen New York geography proponents making a compelling argument. There are good reasons to be skeptical of a Mesoamerican context. There are few reasons to accept the New York model unless one assumes Joseph knew all these things. i.e. it's based almost entirely on these secondary accounts. The New York model seems so difficult to accept that I think it pushes for dismissing historicity entirely. Again though I'm open to counterarguments. Edited June 25, 2018 by clarkgoble
jkwilliams Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, champatsch said: Let's suppose Joseph was the author. He was absolutely impressive in his philological achievement. Achievement #1: more-part phraseology. He gave us 26 of these in the 1829 dictation, four variants. The majority variant is "the more part of X". The King James Bible has two instances of "the more part", that's it, in the book of Acts. That is what Joseph had to work off of. Except for the common variant (see below), he innovated slightly and followed Coverdale's 1535 phraseology with a following PP, "the more part of them" (Acts 27:12), every time (the PP varies). Plus, he produced one example of the very rare variant "a more part of X"; three others are currently known, the last one in 1579 (bare "a more part"). Plus, he produced the rare variant "the more parts of X" twice.; eight others are currently known. Plus, he produced two of the common variant "for the more part" = 'mostly', at 1 Nephi 9:4. This one carried into the modern period in decreasing fashion. One has to go back to the 1577 Tudor history, Holinshed's Chronicles, to find a text with Book of Mormon levels of more-part phraseology in it. For rate of use, one has to go back to 1550, and a translation of Thucydides. Pseudo-biblical texts don't have this usage. Joseph far surpassed the Oxford historian Edward Freeman, the medievalist William Morris, and Robert Louis Stevenson in his more-part usage. Is that you, Stan? 1
smac97 Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I wish Dan would just get a blog and post these things with references. Video is a horrible format for this. It makes it near impossible to reference and I just don't have time to play video as opposed to quickly skimming a text and then reading carefully where the core new things are. Unfortunately I just don't have time to peruse dozens of videos. Not a knock on you - just a recognition of limited time where I try to fit in studying. I'd love to glance over Dan's stuff but just don't have the ability to go through videos easily. .... I'll try to find the references you mention. Alas while I'll try to make time for Dan's videos I doubt I can really watch them reliably. I can't help but wonder if Vogel (and Dehlin) use recordings, rather than text, to discourage substantive critique of the arguments they are making. You aren't the only one who doesn't have time to peruse dozens of videos (or, in Dehlin's case, hundreds of audio/video recordings, consisting of hundreds - thousands? - of hours of content). Difficulty in perusing content tends to discourage substantive scrutiny of such content. Thanks, -Smac
jkwilliams Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: I can't help but wonder if Vogel (and Dehlin) use recordings, rather than text, to discourage substantive critique of the arguments they are making. You aren't the only one who doesn't have time to peruse dozens of videos (or, in Dehlin's case, hundreds of audio/video recordings, consisting of hundreds - thousands? - of hours of content). Difficulty in perusing content tends to discourage substantive scrutiny of such content. Thanks, -Smac I can't speak for Dehlin, but Dan has published a lot of stuff, even with footnotes. The idea that he doesn't want to engage in substantive critique suggests he is hiding something and is unfair. I just watched a video about evidence for the Book of Mormon, which included some well-known apologists, including at least one who posts here. Are they trying to discourage substantive scrutiny? Edited June 25, 2018 by jkwilliams
EdGoble Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 55 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I think the main counter-argument is D&C 9 and the "took no thought save it was to ask me." If the process didn't involve Joseph's will or thought, then wouldn't it be purely mechanical? Yet D&C 9 (admittedly relative to Harris) seems to reject the mechanical process. It could easily be that Joseph had to ponder so that the unknown process could access his thought and make use of it in some fashion. Now the arguments against this hinge upon the differences from Harris' attempt and how Joseph proceeded. But I think they raise some good problems. I'm not sure what you mean by convenient apologetic. I think Don makes a compelling point that Joseph is attempting to work backwards. Whether this was part of studying it out in his mind to catalyze revelation or something else isn't clear. The lack of a translation of the Kinderhook plates is significant though. (Again none of this relates to Zelph) I'm not sure that follows. But clearly it was part of his project and he likely was curious if the Kinderhook characters were in his repository. (Going by vague memory I think he thought they related to the Book of Mormon as well as the papyri) How successful Joseph and his companions thought the work was though seems difficult to establish. I'm not sure he's accessing it there in this case demonstrates much other than he thought it might be useful or even help him determine if the KEP were reliable. I think that by academic, I think Don means mechanical. By convenient apologetic, I mean that it is a convenient way around the idea that Joseph would have done this other than pure revelation. Actually, yes, it does follow if we grant that Joseph was using the KEP as a reliable Egyptian dictionary. I'm not arguing that he was, because I don't believe it was a dictionary in that way, but rather a table of Egyptian puns. I'm just saying that this is the logical implication of Don's and FAIR's usage of this apologetic, and I'm not sure that they want that implication, which is why they don't go there. But it is nevertheless the inescapable conclusion if he is right.
Analytics Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: A conslusion, yes. An assertion, yes. But not argument. No evaluation of the evidence. Naturalistic assertions about what does or does not "fit into the real world" are presuppositional. Or conclusory. Or both. Meanwhile, we're left with arguments about historicity. About the text. About the statements of the Witnesses. Summarily declaring that these things don't "fit into the real world" doesn't advance the discussion. I wasn't trying to "advance the discussion." I was explaining why basically every non-Mormon with a naturalistic bent completely ignores the arguments about historicity. Quote Yes, it is. There are plenty of reasonable, well-educated, well-informed people who, having considered the Book of Mormon, have accepted it for what it claims to be. We all acknowledge that this is principally and ultimately an exercise in faith. But lots of things in life are predicated on things over and above "what we now know about reality." There are plenty of reasonable, well-educated, well-informed people who belong to the LDS faith tradition. Some of them go through the motions for cultural reasons but don't take the truth claims seriously. Others compartmentalize their thinking and believe in naturalism Monday through Saturday and Mormonism on Sunday. Some of them don't really believe it but go along with it with Pascal's Wagerian thinking. Some of them might sincerely think it will all be reconciled and put the details of that on humongous shelves that are stronger than adamantium. Reasonable, well-educated, well-informed people are extraordinarily capable of compartmentalizing contradictory beliefs. But that doesn't mean the beliefs aren't contradictory, and it doesn't mean that some of the beliefs are incredibly well-justified by science and that the contradictory ones are not. Quote You are only proving Ryan's point. You aren't addressing the evidence. You are summarily dismissing the text without addressing the arguments in favor of its historicity. Exactly. I don't address the evidence in favor of young-earth creationism, either. If you will recall, the question posed in the OP is why almost everybody ignores the evidence. Quote It's also easier to mock and ignore the evidence because . . . well, it's easier than engaging the evidence, than presenting a coherent alternative explanation (for the text, for the Witnesses, etc.). When Mormonism offers a coherent alternative explanation for how God travels between earth and Kolob at speeds faster than light, and when it offers a coherent alternative explanation for how Adam could possibly exist when the overwhelming evidence is that we descended from other life forms through the process of natural selection, and when it presents a coherent explanation of dualism, then I might be pay a little bit of attention to the question of how alleged Hebrewisms could exist in the Book of Mormon without the Book of Mormon being an accurate translation of golden plates that were written in Mesoamerica and then buried in New York. Quote Of course, you have no obligation to engage Mormons on an intellectual level. And you are free to simply declare Mormons to be unintelligent because they do not agree with you. I've never declared that anybody was unintelligent because they don't agree with me. Quote But you'll understand why such lazy dismissals are not going to be persuasive to those who are examining and engaging the evidence pertaining to the Book of Mormon (both pro and con). I'm not trying to be persuasive. As I said, most people here disagree with my viewpoint. I'm just giving a frank answer to the question that was asked, which was why have I chosen not to seriously engage these evidences. Edited June 25, 2018 by Analytics 1
jkwilliams Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, Analytics said: I wasn't trying to "advance the discussion." I was explaining why basically every non-Mormon with a naturalistic bent completely ignores the arguments about historicity. There are plenty of reasonable, well-educated, well-informed people who belong to the LDS faith tradition. Some of them go through the motions for cultural reasons but don't take the truth claims seriously. Others compartmentalize their thinking and believe in naturalism Monday through Saturday and Mormonism on Sunday. Some of them don't really believe it but go along with it with Pascal's Wagerian thinking. Some of them might sincerely think it will all be reconciled and put the details of that on humongous shelves that are stronger than adamantium. Reasonable, well-educated, well-informed people are extraordinarily capable of compartmentalizing contradictory beliefs. But that doesn't mean the beliefs aren't contradictory, and it doesn't mean that some of the beliefs are incredibly well-justified by science and that the contradictory ones are not. Exactly. I don't address the evidence in favor of young-earth creationism, either. If you will recall, the question posed in the OP is why almost everybody ignores the evidence. When Mormonism offers a coherent alternative explanation for how God travels between earth and Kolob at speeds faster than light, and when it offers a coherent alternative explanation for how Adam could possibly exist when the overwhelming evidence is that we descended from other life forms through the process of natural selection, and when it presents a coherent explanation of dualism, then I might be pay a little bit of attention to the question of how alleged Hebrewisms could exist in the Book of Mormon without the Book of Mormon being an accurate translation of golden plates that were written in Mesoamerica and then buried in New York. I've never declared that anybody was unintelligent because they don't agree with me. I'm not trying to be persuasive. As I said, most people here disagree with my viewpoint. I'm just giving a frank answer to the question that was asked, which was why have I chosen not to seriously engage these evidences. Yep. Smarter people than I am believe in the Book of Mormon, and smarter people than I am don't believe in it. I used to "engage the evidence," but I don't bother for the reasons you state. These days, every time I engage in a debate, I regret it, either because it ends up being a waste of time (usually) and because I almost always anger or hurt someone. 1
cinepro Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: The Encyclopedia of Mormonism has this to say about the Flood: I don't think the scope of the flood is a critical part of LDS doctrine. Plenty of room for reasonable minds to disagree. Yes, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and Widtsoe both insist on a global flood. Thanks for sharing those. In fact, that quote from Widtsoe is taken from his book "Evidences and Reconciliations", in which he adds this comment about the flood. It's weird how this part is always left out when the reference is brought up in the discussion... Quote Latter-day Saints look upon the earth as a living organism, one which is gloriously filling "the measure of its creation" [D&C 88:25]. They look upon the flood as a baptism of the earth, symbolizing a cleansing of the impurities of the past, and the beginning of a new life. This has been repeatedly taught by the leaders of the Church. The deluge was an immersion of the earth in water (D&C 88:25; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:274; Discourses of Brigham Young, p.603; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, 1:331). Though the whole of the earth was covered with water, the depth was immaterial. When a person is baptized, it does not matter how far under the water he is brought, nor whether every part of him is at the same depth. The essential part of the symbolism is the that he should be completely immersed. http://www.cumorah.com/etexts/evidencesreconciliations.txt (Emphasis added) Who knows, maybe one day we'll see more and more LDS insisting "I don't think the historicity of The Book of Mormon is a critical part of LDS doctrine. Plenty of room for reasonable minds to disagree." I suspect people supporting such a proposition will need to carefully manicure quotes from church leaders and cite unofficial sources as if they were authoritative, but it looks like that won't be a problem. Edited June 25, 2018 by cinepro 1
Gray Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 24 minutes ago, champatsch said: Let's suppose Joseph was the author. He was absolutely impressive in his philological achievement. Achievement #1: more-part phraseology. He gave us 26 of these in the 1829 dictation, four variants. The majority variant is "the more part of X". The King James Bible has two instances of "the more part", that's it, in the book of Acts. That is what Joseph had to work off of. Except for the common variant (see below), he innovated slightly and followed Coverdale's 1535 phraseology with a following PP, "the more part of them" (Acts 27:12), every time (the PP varies). Plus, he produced one example of the very rare variant "a more part of X"; three others are currently known, the last one in 1579 (bare "a more part"). Plus, he produced the rare variant "the more parts of X" twice.; eight others are currently known. Plus, he produced two of the common variant "for the more part" = 'mostly', at 1 Nephi 9:4. This one carried into the modern period in decreasing fashion. One has to go back to the 1577 Tudor history, Holinshed's Chronicles, to find a text with Book of Mormon levels of more-part phraseology in it. For rate of use, one has to go back to 1550, and a translation of Thucydides. Pseudo-biblical texts don't have this usage. Joseph far surpassed the Oxford historian Edward Freeman, the medievalist William Morris, and Robert Louis Stevenson in his more-part usage. Alternative interpretation: the translator fixated upon the examples of "the more part" in the KJV because they sounded archaic to his ears, and over-used them in his translation. Might also explain the misuse of "ye" when "you" would actually be the correct KJV-era grammar. "Ye" sounds more archaic so it gets used instead. 3
jkwilliams Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 Just now, Gray said: Alternative interpretation: the translator fixated upon the examples of "the more part" in the KJV because they sounded archaic to his ears, and over-used them in his translation. Might also explain the misuse of "ye" when "you" would actually be the correct KJV-era grammar. "Ye" sounds more archaic so it gets used instead. A cursory glance at the ngram viewer shows that "the more part of them," etc., isn't exactly unknown in the 19th century. 2
smac97 Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, cinepro said: Yes, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, and Widtsoe, both insist on a global flood. Thanks for sharing those. Who knows, maybe one day we'll see more and more LDS insisting "I don't think the historicity of The Book of Mormon is a cricial part of LDS doctrine. Plenty of room for reasonable minds to disagree." Except that the Book of Mormon is a critical part of LDS doctrine. Stripping it of its historicity is akin to stripping Jesus Christ of His historicity. Saying that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is irrelevant is like saying the historicity of Jesus Christ is irrelevant. The "inspired fiction" crowd is not, I think, making any substantial in-roads into the Church. If anything, that theory is more likely to be a part of the process of those choosing to leave. I don't think the Church is going to make historicity a litmus test for membership. We want to be as "big tent" as we can. But there are limits. Thanks, -Smac
jkwilliams Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: Except that the Book of Mormon is a critical part of LDS doctrine. Stripping it of its historicity is akin to stripping Jesus Christ of His historicity. Saying that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is irrelevant is like saying the historicity of Jesus Christ is irrelevant. The "inspired fiction" crowd is not, I think, making any substantial in-roads into the Church. If anything, that theory is more likely to be a part of the process of those choosing to leave. I don't think the Church is going to make historicity a litmus test for membership. We want to be as "big tent" as we can. But there are limits. Thanks, -Smac I know quite a few members of the church who don't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. For them as for me, at some point you just can't make it work anymore, and you're tired of making excuses or putting things on the shelf. But they aren't anywhere on the road to "choosing to leave." Should they be leaving? I don't think so.
Ryan Dahle Posted June 25, 2018 Author Posted June 25, 2018 55 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I think the main counter-argument is D&C 9 and the "took no thought save it was to ask me." If the process didn't involve Joseph's will or thought, then wouldn't it be purely mechanical? Yet D&C 9 (admittedly relative to Harris) seems to reject the mechanical process. It could easily be that Joseph had to ponder so that the unknown process could access his thought and make use of it in some fashion. Now the arguments against this hinge upon the differences from Harris' attempt and how Joseph proceeded. But I think they raise some good problems. I think you are meaning Cowdery. Part of the problem is that we don't get any sense of "studying it out in your mind" from the witnesses. None of them ever talk about Joseph deliberating over the text. It all just seemed to flow out of him at a fairly smooth and rapid pace. John Welch has conducted his own translation sessions and has concluded that the translators had to be moving along at a pretty good clip to finish in the window of time that we know the translation took place. A lot of dictation and not a lot of "studying" (whatever that specifically might pertain to) was going on during the translation sessions. Also, where is the asking part in Joseph's day to day translation efforts? Did he ask after or before he dictated something? If after, he sure got it right a lot because there is hardly any substantive revisions--it is almost entirely scribal errors from mishearing his dictation. If before, one may wonder what he was even asking about? The pervasive presence of Early Modern syntax and lexical items makes the inherent problems with this ask/answer conception of translation much more difficult to overcome. Stan Spencer actually has some intriguing ideas about how specifically we are misinterpreting D&C 9: https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-faith-to-see-burning-in-the-bosom-and-translating-the-book-of-mormon-in-doctrine-and-covenants-9/ 1
Popular Post jkwilliams Posted June 25, 2018 Popular Post Posted June 25, 2018 On 6/23/2018 at 12:25 AM, Robert F. Smith said: Perhaps he does lack self-awareness. On the other hand, we wouldn't necessarily say the same of Mosser & Owen, the two evangelicals who took the time to examine Mormon apologetics and come up with the same conclusion that Ryan did. Ryan does seem to be well-informed. The problem for most is that it takes an inordinate amount of effort and time to master the questions he is addressing, and there may not be a job even for academics with degrees in related fields. History and religion (not to mention theology and philosophy) don't really pay well these days, if one can even find a job in a related field. Consequently, who can afford the time to do the issues justice? And so few even bother. I really started reading voraciously about these issues 25 years or so ago when I worked for the church and could spend my lunch hour at the historical library. As I said, people who are much smarter and better read than I am believe and don't believe. I stopped "engaging" apologetic arguments because I got to the point where it didn't make any difference. I haven't seen anything that makes me reconsider my conclusions, and clearly, nothing I say here is going to change anyone else's mind. Ryan asked why people like me don't engage the evidence, and that is why. There simply isn't much of a point. I haven't been ignoring this thread. I've just had more important stuff going on. 5
Calm Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 1 hour ago, cinepro said: Honestly, if the Church were to diminish over the next few decades and find itself with < 1 million members mostly centered in Utah, I would guess it's because of the Church's stance on issues like homosexuality, not a literal belief in the Book of Mormon. Do you really think the Church's on homosexuality will have that huge of an impact globally? (Not saying it won't in some nonAmerican countries, but everywhere?). 2
smac97 Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 26 minutes ago, Analytics said: I wasn't trying to "advance the discussion." I was explaining why basically every non-Mormon with a naturalistic bent completely ignores the arguments about historicity. Yes, this is becoming increasingly apparent. Refusing to engage the evidence is not exactly a position of strength. Disclaiming an interest in Mormonism isn't, either. 26 minutes ago, Analytics said: There are plenty of reasonable, well-educated, well-informed people who belong to the LDS faith tradition. Some of them go through the motions for cultural reasons but don't take the truth claims seriously. Others compartmentalize their thinking and believe in naturalism Monday through Saturday and Mormonism on Sunday. Some of them don't really believe it but go along with it with Pascal's Wagerian thinking. Some of them might sincerely think it will all be reconciled and put the details of that on humongous shelves that are stronger than adamantium. Reasonable, well-educated, well-informed people are extraordinarily capable of compartmentalizing contradictory beliefs. But that doesn't mean the beliefs aren't contradictory, and it doesn't mean that some of the beliefs are incredibly well-justified by science and that the contradictory ones are not. We're really only discussing arguments and evidence being advanced by the first group ("reasonable, well-educated, well-informed people"). And these arguments and evidences aren't being addressed. 26 minutes ago, Analytics said: Exactly. I don't address the evidence in favor of young-earth creationism, either. If you will recall, the question posed in the OP is why almost everybody ignores the evidence. You find the historicity of the Book of Mormon to be a priori absurd, akin to young-earth creationism. I get it. That's a bit odd given how many years you've spent discussing Mormonism. How many hundreds (thousands?) of times have you made public statements about the LDS Church and its doctrines. And yet when it comes to addressing substantive points and evidences presented by LDS scholars and apologists, you just turn your brain off? These things aren't even worth your time? John Weldon did the same thing, but he's a dogmatist, and apparently not the brightest bulb in the box. You are neither of these things, but you are emulating him anyway. I guess I just find that strange. A priori dismissal is certainly your prerogative. I'll account for it accordingly. 26 minutes ago, Analytics said: When Mormonism offers a coherent alternative explanation for how God travels between earth and Kolob at speeds faster than light, and when it offers a coherent alternative explanation for how Adam could possibly exist when the overwhelming evidence is that we descended from other life forms through the process of natural selection, and when it presents a coherent explanation of dualism, then I might be pay a little bit of attention to the question of how alleged Hebrewisms could exist in the Book of Mormon without the Book of Mormon being an accurate translation of golden plates that were written in Mesoamerica and then buried in New York. Arguments about historicity are, in my view, categorically distinct from the imponderables you suggest above. We only work with what we've got. I can't provide "a coherent [] explanation" for Jesus Christ rising from the dead. I believe it happened, but I lack sufficient information to address the mechanics of it in any meaningful sense. So it is with God's travel plans, or Adam's origins. That's not quite the case, though, with the historicity of the Book of Mormon. We have some real, substantive stuff to work with. The text. The statements of the Witnesses (and historical information about the Witnesses). Royal Skousen's critical text project. Information about Joseph Smith's life and education and contemporaries. There's quite a bit of very interesting information - evidence - that can be derived from these things. There is some measure of "testability" about them, unlike your list of imponderables. And yet critics who profess interest in Mormonism nevertheless are essentially refusing to address the points and arguments being raised by LDS scholars and apologists. 26 minutes ago, Analytics said: I've never declared that anybody was unintelligent because they don't agree with me. C'mon. Comparisons to young-earth creationism are nothing but a declaration that those who believe that the Book of Mormon is historical are unintelligent. 26 minutes ago, Analytics said: I'm not trying to be persuasive. Yes, I see that. 26 minutes ago, Analytics said: As I said, most people here disagree with my viewpoint. I'm just giving a frank answer to the question that was asked, which was why have I chosen not to seriously engage these evidences. Still haven't seen much in the way of "why." Just Weldon-esque dodges. But there's no obligation to engage LDS scholarship, so dodge away. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I know quite a few members of the church who don't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. For them as for me, at some point you just can't make it work anymore, and you're tired of making excuses or putting things on the shelf. But they aren't anywhere on the road to "choosing to leave." Should they be leaving? I don't think so. I don't want them to leave, either. Really. I hope they stay. And I welcome them in fellowship. Thanks, -Smac 2
jkwilliams Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 Just now, Calm said: Do you really think the Church's on homosexuality will have that huge of an impact globally? (Not saying it won't in some nonAmerican countries, but everywhere?). Most likely in the developed world, but then that isn't where the church's growth is occurring these days. 1
jkwilliams Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 1 minute ago, smac97 said: Yes, this is becoming increasingly apparent. Refusing to engage the evidence is not exactly a position of strength. Disclaiming an interest in Mormonism isn't, either. We're really only discussing arguments and evidence being advanced by the first group ("reasonable, well-educated, well-informed people"). And these arguments and evidences aren't being addressed. You find the historicity of the Book of Mormon to be a priori absurd, akin to young-earth creationism. I get it. That's a bit odd given how many years you've spent discussing Mormonism. How many hundreds (thousands?) of times have you made public statements about the LDS Church and its doctrines. And yet when it comes to addressing substantive points and evidences presented by LDS scholars and apologists, you just turn your brain off? These things aren't even worth your time? John Weldon did the same thing, but he's a dogmatist, and apparently not the brightest bulb in the box. You are neither of these things, but you are emulating him anyway. I guess I just find that strange. A priori dismissal is certainly your prerogative. I'll account for it accordingly. Arguments about historicity are, in my view, categorically distinct from the imponderables you suggest above. We only work with what we've got. I can't provide "a coherent [] explanation" for Jesus Christ rising from the dead. I believe it happened, but I lack sufficient information to address the mechanics of it in any meaningful sense. So it is with God's travel plans, or Adam's origins. That's not quite the case, though, with the historicity of the Book of Mormon. We have some real, substantive stuff to work with. The text. The statements of the Witnesses (and historical information about the Witnesses). Royal Skousen's critical text project. Information about Joseph Smith's life and education and contemporaries. There's quite a bit of very interesting information - evidence - that can be derived from these things. There is some measure of "testability" about them, unlike your list of imponderables. And yet critics who profess interest in Mormonism nevertheless are essentially refusing to address the points and arguments being raised by LDS scholars and apologists. C'mon. Comparisons to young-earth creationism are nothing but a declaration that those who believe that the Book of Mormon is historical are unintelligent. Yes, I see that. Still haven't seen much in the way of "why." Just Weldon-esque dodges. But there's no obligation to engage LDS scholarship, so dodge away. Thanks, -Smac Sounds like you want him to engage the scholarship rather than answer the question why he doesn't. Weird.
smac97 Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I really started reading voraciously about these issues 25 years or so ago when I worked for the church and could spend my lunch hour at the historical library. As I said, people who are much smarter and better read than I am believe and don't believe. I stopped "engaging" apologetic arguments because I got to the point where it didn't make any difference. I haven't seen anything that makes me reconsider my conclusions, and clearly, nothing I say here is going to change anyone else's mind. Ryan asked why people like me don't engage the evidence, and that is why. There simply isn't much of a point. I haven't been ignoring this thread. I've just had more important stuff going on. A beautiful child! Congrats! -Smac
jkwilliams Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 Just now, smac97 said: A beautiful child! Congrats! -Smac Born in the covenant, FWIW. 2
smac97 Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 (edited) On 6/25/2018 at 1:46 PM, jkwilliams said: Sounds like you want him to engage the scholarship rather than answer the question why he doesn't. Weird. Not really. I'm sincere in accommodating peopel who choose, for whatever reason, not to engage LDS scholarship. I think in the long term, LDS scholarship will have quite a positive effect for the Church. I'm not so arrogant as to suggest that such scholarship can't be meaningfully addressed and rebutted. I'm just saying that there seems to be an awful lot of Weldon-esque sidestepping going on. I'd like to see more engagement of LDS scholarship, that is true. But I won't lose sleep over anyone's refusal to do that. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 23, 2020 by smac97 1
jkwilliams Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 1 minute ago, smac97 said: Not really. I'm sincere in accommodating peopel who choose, for whatever reason, not to engage LDS scholarship. I think in the long term, LDS scholarship will have quite a positive effect for the Church. I'm not so arrogant as to suggest that such scholarship can't be meaningfully addressed and rebutted. I'm just saying that there seems to be an awful lot of Weldon-esque sidestepping going on. I'd like to see more engagemetn of LDS scholarship, that is true. But I won't lose sleep over anyone's refusal to do that. Thanks, -Smac In the end, does it make any difference? It's kind of like all the stuff that goes on around the JFK assassination. The physical evidence and eyewitness testimony is pretty clear what happened, and yet there's always some "what about this" thing coming up. A while back, I saw this guy saying a photo had been doctored because a car in the background had gray window frames when they should have been yellow. For whatever reason, I could see the guy was wrong, so I sent him an email explaining why he was wrong (that kind of car had metal window frames, and they could be seen in other photos and films). Didn't matter in the least because this guy was alive in 1963 and knew better than I did, and I obviously was one of those shills for the "lone nut with a gun" theory. Nothing changed, the guy is still making this claim, and I learned a lesson about following someone into the weeds. 1
Benjamin Seeker Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I can't help but wonder if Vogel (and Dehlin) use recordings, rather than text, to discourage substantive critique of the arguments they are making. You aren't the only one who doesn't have time to peruse dozens of videos (or, in Dehlin's case, hundreds of audio/video recordings, consisting of hundreds - thousands? - of hours of content). Difficulty in perusing content tends to discourage substantive scrutiny of such content. Thanks, -Smac Of course I can say for sure, but putting videos on YouTube is the most sure-fire way of spreading content to a wide audience. Videos > text in popularity and YouTube > all other content delivery systems (i believe) in popularly currently.
Recommended Posts