How to Answer Questions about Church History

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It occurs to me that if there is no afterlife, we will all die believing we are right. Somehow that’s comforting. 

And in my opinion THAT is the wisest thing you have ever said hereabouts.

Pure pragmatism at its finest.

THAT is why I am a Mormon- it presents the most humanistic and reasonable goal for mankind- the perfection of mankind.  Who could argue with that?

Seeing God as the Ideal Human is the best idea that has ever hit humanity

And then you have the concept of The Christ- a Human God who was actually here to teach us how to follow the Ideal Human who makes theosis real

What better paradigms for goodness could mankind ever come up with?

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Where much is given, much is required.  I think this has to do with our awareness as conscious beings that can comprehend our own existence and our relationship to the existence of other living things.  I consider this kind of understanding to include a level of responsibility along with the awareness.  

What is your empirical evidence for such a belief- or where does it come from?

Sociology?  Were you conditioned to believe this strange doctrine?    And you consider it without empirical evidence of its truth?

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Quote

Where much is given, much is required.  

Parents give their lives to their kids, many in my experience don't "require" much from their kids.  They want their kids to be happy.

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And in my opinion THAT is the wisest thing you have ever said hereabouts.

Pure pragmatism at its finest.

THAT is why I am a Mormon- it presents the most humanistic and reasonable goal for mankind- the perfection of mankind.  Who could argue with that?

Seeing God as the Ideal Human is the best idea that has ever hit humanity

And then you have the concept of The Christ- a Human God who was actually here to teach us how to follow the Ideal Human who makes theosis real

What better paradigms for goodness could mankind ever come up with?

Those are the things I like about Mormonism. It is a much more hopeful way to look at life than the traditional concepts of God and the meaning of life. Of course, that isn’t all there is in Mormonism. 

[Jane_Doe]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you implying that these different epistemological tools also have some basis in scientific evidence?  If so, can you elaborate?  

The scientific method is only a single tool about of the epistemological toolbox, and that one tool cannot address all questions.  There are other epistemological tools besides that one whom can address of other questions.  

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Did you intentionally skip my question about the BoM evidence where I have a very different interpretation of what is symbolic than the traditional orthodox interpretation.  Is my view about 19th century origins not just a more sophisticated view of the truth about BoM origins?  

I was trying to keep my answer pithy to directly address your question.  

Me addressing your beliefs on the BoM origins would not be a pithy answer-- I'd have to understand your beliefs with enough thoroughness to adequately comment on them, which would involve me asking more follow up questions to your comment, confirming I heard you right, etc.  All in all, a long windy road and totally not a pithy response.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

A physical encounter where I could with some level of confidence determine I wasn’t asleep or unconscious, would have greater merit.

But how exactly would you know if you were awake or conscious?

Joseph Smith was lying in bed with his brothers when, according to his report, the Angel Moroni first appeared to him.

My father was lying in bed next to his pregnant, sleeping wife one night, praying earnestly that both she and the baby would be fine (despite the fact that she'd earlier been told that another pregnancy would most probably result in the loss of her life). According to his report, he saw the room brighten through his closed eyelids, and when he opened his eyes, a man dressed all in white was standing next to the bed. As part of the ensuing conversation, Dad was promised that Mum and I would both be fine.

My housemate thought the story the Sister missionaries had told him about the Book of Mormon was too painfully ridiculous to seriously consider. But he was polite enough to let the Sisters return, and eventually their nagging about prayer brought him to the point that he agreed that he would actually pray about it that night. According to his report, he was lying in bed praying when he too saw the room brighten. Upon opening his eyes, he saw three men, dressed in white, standing near his bed. In response to his obvious fear, they told him to close his eyes, laid their hands on his head, and blessed him that he could believe the book.

I think the most straightforward explanation in each of these three cases is that the person was asleep and merely dreamt the experience. In their shoes (slippers?), how exactly would you know with any level of confidence that you weren't asleep or unconscious?

Quote

And if I personally had an angel visit me and tell me the location of some buried treasures, and then I went an found those buried treasures in that location, yes that would make me personally have a stronger belief than just a visionary experience alone.

And what if the 'buried treasure' is a person who is wounded and needs your attention? Would you still go? Or would you just dismiss the revelation as something that may not even be connected to the 'real world'?

It has been my personal experience, oft repeated, that God doesn't send angels or visions or other forms of revelation just for the hell of it. They always have messages to convey, and those messages always invite us to act. When we do so -- and this is where we get into the power of faith! -- then and only then do we begin to know.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Of course, that isn’t all there is in Mormonism. 

Indeed not. As one of my former Young Men has repeatedly pointed out, it's like one of those late-night infomercials:

Edited July 26, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/24/2018 at 1:21 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

Those arguments seem contradictory. If I learn the story of Santa Claus and the reindeer isn't real I can still appreciate Christmas and gifts etc, but it would be foolish to hold on to the testimony of Santa. So I guess it's okay to not believe in Santa as long as I orient myself to act like I do.

Is he suggesting that even if, for example, he learned that Joseph smith didn't "translate" "golden plates" written by "ancient prophets" as a "literal history" that he should still orient himself based on the testimony that those things were true? Doesn't make much sense to me. In fact, it sounds a bit delusional.

That, of course, is not what Harper said.  That bespeaks an utterly childish approach to historiography, and further suggests that nothing he learned in graduate school is relevant.  It is a fallacy based on assuming true what has to be proved (and has not been proved).  QED.  Naturally he would have to be delusional if and only if he actually knew for a fact that Joe Smith did not translate any golden plates by ancient prophets as a literal history, and instead based his belief on mere fairy faith.  How, pray tell, does one prove all that?   And without any professional historical training or research?

In any case, the research of Stanford Carmack makes clear that Joe did not translate the BofM -- that it was done at least two centuries before him.  Joe merely read it off to his scribes.

A personal testimony by the power of the  Holy Spirit carries no professional historical content.  It is completely subjective.  Whereas professional historical conclusions based on the evaluation of hard, forensic evidence has some objective value -- particularly as part of a professional community of thought across all manner of secular theories of history.  It is a discussion which takes place over time and among many different scholars writing in peer reviewed journals.  As with the Hofmann forgery discussed by Harper, it can sometimes take awhile for the truth to become clear.  What do you depend upon in the interim?  Do you allow yourself to be whipsawed?  Or is patience called for?

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Did you listen to the Dr. Harper's video?  His two points that I mentioned in the OP seem in contradiction to me.  If he isn't using his personal revelatory experience about the BoM to inform his scholarly position on the historicity of the BoM, then I would have no problem at all with what he's saying.  Unfortunately, I think that's exactly what he is doing.  If you have evidence to support a different interpretation of what Dr. Harper is saying, please provide it.  I've listened to him many times, read essays and books of his as well.  If I'm misreading him, I'd like to see evidence otherwise.  

Maybe you should listen to his comments again (a Q&A for ordinary folk, not for his fellow historians).  I provided reasonable answers to your imaginary contradictions in my first answer to your OP.  I'll present them here again.  Perhaps you could explain where I went wrong:

Quote

On 7/24/2018 at 12:40 PM, hope_for_things said:

..............................

Towards the end of the video (19 min mark) he makes an analogy to finding out that story of Santa Clause he learned as a young child wasn't real.  He explains that he learned many things about the history of Santa Clause that differed from the simple story told to children.  The point of this was to say that just because he learned that story wasn't true, doesn't mean we should throw out Christmas.  There is value in Christmas still even if those childhood stories about Santa Clause aren't true.  If we apply this analogy to Mormon church history, what does it mean to learn that things aren't true, but that we shouldn't throw out the church?  I think to some extent my personal beliefs track really closely to this.  I don't believe in a theistic God anymore and  I don't believe the BoM is historical, yet I still see value in the Mormon tradition and religious traditions in general.  It seems like my orientation of not wanting to throw out all the good just because I learned the traditional narratives aren't true, would apply here.  Thoughts?  

Steven Harper is an actual historian, as measured by secular standards.  I have listened to him lecture on many occasions, and have read some of his work.  He has a first class grasp of Mormon history -- again as measured by purely secular standards.

The analogy with Xmas is a good one when considering real history, whether we want (1) to study the origin of the stories about Saint Nicholas, (2) merely talk about all the fun children have in opening presents while having a cool Yule, or (3) speaking about the actual birth stories of a particular dying-and-rising god at the Winter Solstice -- which has pagan and orthodox aspects to it.  Once we accept that Xmas is really a fun pagan celebration (just like Easter), we can begin to demythologize it for adults.  For example, the story of three wise men does not actually have three in the NT.  We don't know the number of the magi.  We only know the tale about the gifts they brought. 

Thus, most discussion about the NT is conducted at the infantile level, hardly anyone reading it in Greek or understanding the Jewish context.  True historical concerns are only rarely brought to bear.  Most Mormons and non-Mormons address the actual Bible with something like Cliff's Notes to help them understand.

  12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Also, towards the beginning of the interview he talks about after having some experiences that challenged his faith that his Dad shared his testimony of the BoM with him, and that even though he didn't have good answers to every question, how he relies on a testimony of the BoM.  Later in the interview he makes a statement that no amount of history can prove the church is or isn't true.   He seems to be saying that what matters most is not accurate history, but rather a person's orientation towards a very specific truth claim.  So even if none of the LDS truth claims have historical evidence to support them, as long as you believe the BoM is "true" and the gospel is "true" then nothing else matters.  Why?  I don't understand. 

You don't understand the difference between faith and science.  They are completely different categories of thought.  One is mediated by the Holy Spirit, the other through forensic or logical evidence.

Since hardly anyone is really qualified to address the actual secular issues of history, archeology, or theology of the Bible or Book of Mormon, nearly everyone depends upon mere unaided opinion in determining the truth or falsity of biblical or Book of Mormon claims.  A personal testimony is not evidence that something is true, except to the person having that testimony.

  12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Can anyone else help me understand what he's trying to say.  I'm on board with not throwing out all the good of religion and Mormonism when we find out that traditional narratives aren't accurate history.  That makes complete sense to me.  But I'm confused as to why this principle seems to be limited to only certain questions.  Can't we also learn that the BoM isn't "true", through seeking greater knowledge?  Why does he seem to limit this exploration when it comes down to the bare essentials, questions about the gospel (God) and questions about the foundational text of Mormonism.  

https://www.mormonchannel.org/watch/series/gospel-solutions-for-families/how-to-answer-questions-about-church-history

The late UofU Professor Sterling McMurrin held the view that Mormon society or culture was a good thing, but he did not believe in the authenticity of the BofM or the Bible.  Yet he remained a member of the LDS Church all his life.

I think that you misinterpret Harper.  He is not opposed to studying historical evidences, no matter where that study may lead.  I find rather that it is precisely the anti-Mormons who are deeply fearful of studying secular history.  After all, the conclusions might upset their settled and poorly informed opinions.  Many of them want Mormonism to be false,  no matter what.  When that happens, there isn't much room for discussion.

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Agreed.

My way of handling that incidentally is saying that I believe that the Book of Mormon is historical truth but I take the verification of that historical truth and base it on faith.

Many believe that the Book of Mormon must be historically true for the church to be true.

I believe that my position is a good logical compromise.

On the other side I don't happen to believe that it has to be historically true to be perfect scripture, nevertheless I do take historicity on faith. I think it can never be proven in "principle" either way  as part of taking the church itself on faith.

I see the evidence and see it as substantial, but I do not believe that God wants it to be" provable" one way or the other.

I'm just saying that because some have put me in one camp or the other. I am in neither and both, depending on the context of the discussion. 

I think that Harper takes much the same position, even though some think that he  is equivocating.  He isn't.

[Calm]

Quote

.  Is my view about 19th century origins not just a more sophisticated view of the truth about BoM origins?  

I am always uncomfortable when people are the ones to label themselves the "more sophisticated".  Seems like a lot of wishful thinking might be playing into that opinion.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I love stories like this, so great when people's lives are changed for the better and they have religious experiences that prompt the changes.  

I think what we can accurately say about what your Dad and others who've had similar experiences have gone through is a marvelous transformation conversion experience.  That doesn't make the BoM historical or mean Apostles have exclusive authority or anything from an objective factual perspective.  It just means that certain people in the right circumstances have experiences that are personally powerful and life changing, inside and outside religion.  This is part of the human story.  

Well, it most definitely makes the Book of Mormon historical and the apostolic calling real and authoritative for my family. It has been a solid rock for my parents and me. As I share it with my children and grandchildren, I can see it’s power diminishing, but I and they have had our own witnesses that are as significant and life-changing as my dad’s. It’s more real than anything else I have experienced, except physical pain.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Why would we want to ask God if anything is true?  

It seems to me there is truth and error everywhere.  I'm haven't seen compelling evidence that prayer is an accurate way of distinguishing between truth and error unfortunately.  It sounds like a very useful tool if it could accurately do this, but I don't think it can.  

I read the Book of Mormon. Moroni said, ask God if it is true. I said, ok. I wanted to know because of that invitation. I never got that idea from the phone directory, a book of math tables, my biography of Einstein, or the latest issue of the New York Times. On several critical juncture in my life, prayer has indeed proven the best way to distinguish between right and wrong. Why should I deny that?

[jkwilliams]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Indeed not. As one of my former Young Men has repeatedly pointed out, it's like one of those late-night infomercials:

I was thinking more along the lines of “side effects may include ...”

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not trying to suggest that we should be judgmental about our awareness of others, I'm just pointing out that we often are confused about what we perceive, whether its our ability to remember things, or our ability to interpret things.  I would recommend two podcasts that have some very interesting material about self deception topics.  Also there were a couple episodes about memory problems on Malcome Gladwell's Revisionist History podcast this season that were excellent as well.  All of these podcasts are just an entry way on this topic and there are books and other materials that you can read about as well.  I find this stuff fascinating. 

https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510308/hidden-brain

https://youarenotsosmart.com/podcast/

http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/23-a-polite-word-for-liar-memory-part-1

http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/24-free-brian-williams

 

Well then we're talking about two different things it seems to me.  Thanks for the links.

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What is your empirical evidence for such a belief- or where does it come from?

Sociology?  Were you conditioned to believe this strange doctrine?    And you consider it without empirical evidence of its truth?

Ha!  From the heart.    😉

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

The scientific method is only a single tool about of the epistemological toolbox, and that one tool cannot address all questions.  There are other epistemological tools besides that one whom can address of other questions.  

I was trying to keep my answer pithy to directly address your question.  

Me addressing your beliefs on the BoM origins would not be a pithy answer-- I'd have to understand your beliefs with enough thoroughness to adequately comment on them, which would involve me asking more follow up questions to your comment, confirming I heard you right, etc.  All in all, a long windy road and totally not a pithy response.

Just trying to point out what I see as a problem with the way you’ve compared the religious stories children are told to the scientific teachings children learn in school.  There are so many different religious teachings, within Mormonism as well as across time and culture and scripture.  All these teachings don’t harmonize.  All these teachings dont build on basic fundamentals.  There are as many different beliefs about religion as there are humans on this earth.  Science is very different, I don’t think your analogy works.  

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

But how exactly would you know if you were awake or conscious?

Joseph Smith was lying in bed with his brothers when, according to his report, the Angel Moroni first appeared to him.

My father was lying in bed next to his pregnant, sleeping wife one night, praying earnestly that both she and the baby would be fine (despite the fact that she'd earlier been told that another pregnancy would most probably result in the loss of her life). According to his report, he saw the room brighten through his closed eyelids, and when he opened his eyes, a man dressed all in white was standing next to the bed. As part of the ensuing conversation, Dad was promised that Mum and I would both be fine.

My housemate thought the story the Sister missionaries had told him about the Book of Mormon was too painfully ridiculous to seriously consider. But he was polite enough to let the Sisters return, and eventually their nagging about prayer brought him to the point that he agreed that he would actually pray about it that night. According to his report, he was lying in bed praying when he too saw the room brighten. Upon opening his eyes, he saw three men, dressed in white, standing near his bed. In response to his obvious fear, they told him to close his eyes, laid their hands on his head, and blessed him that he could believe the book.

I think the most straightforward explanation in each of these three cases is that the person was asleep and merely dreamt the experience. In their shoes (slippers?), how exactly would you know with any level of confidence that you weren't asleep or unconscious?

And what if the 'buried treasure' is a person who is wounded and needs your attention? Would you still go? Or would you just dismiss the revelation as something that may not even be connected to the 'real world'?

It has been my personal experience, oft repeated, that God doesn't send angels or visions or other forms of revelation just for the hell of it. They always have messages to convey, and those messages always invite us to act. When we do so -- and this is where we get into the power of faith! -- then and only then do we begin to know.

When I hear stories like this, it kind of makes me feel cheated. But at the same time I'm very happy for your housemate's and your father and mother's experience. But feel left out of not getting any answers for so long. 

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

But how exactly would you know if you were awake or conscious?

Same way you know you’re awake and typing me a message.  

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It has been my personal experience, oft repeated, that God doesn't send angels or visions or other forms of revelation just for the hell of it. They always have messages to convey, and those messages always invite us to act. When we do so -- and this is where we get into the power of faith! -- then and only then do we begin to know.

I appreciate you have a strong conviction on this subject.  I haven’t seen convincing evidence to support the idea that angelic visions are anything tangible that happens in a measurable way.  This does not mean I don’t think these experiences aren’t life changing for the people who experience them.  

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Maybe you should listen to his comments again (a Q&A for ordinary folk, not for his fellow historians).  I provided reasonable answers to your imaginary contradictions in my first answer to your OP.  I'll present them here again.  Perhaps you could explain where I went wrong:

I read your replies, and they constitute your opinion about what Dr. Harper meant, however you don’t provide evidence to support that opinion either specifically from something he stated in the video or somewhere else.  Maybe some quotes from Dr. Harper that explain your interpretation of what he said.  I’m looking for something more substantive.  

 

 

[jkwilliams]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

When I hear stories like this, it kind of makes me feel cheated. But at the same time I'm very happy for your housemate's and your father and mother's experience. But feel left out of not getting any answers for so long. 

We all do our best with what we have. 

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I am always uncomfortable when people are the ones to label themselves the "more sophisticated".  Seems like a lot of wishful thinking might be playing into that opinion.

More sophisticated is the language Jane Doe used and I was replying directly back to her using the same language.  I don’t typically use that language for how I’ve constructed my beliefs.  

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, it most definitely makes the Book of Mormon historical and the apostolic calling real and authoritative for my family. It has been a solid rock for my parents and me. As I share it with my children and grandchildren, I can see it’s power diminishing, but I and they have had our own witnesses that are as significant and life-changing as my dad’s. It’s more real than anything else I have experienced, except physical pain.

That is the narrative your family crafted to tell the story of your Dad’s conversion.  You embue these symbols with power in the process.  Traditions, rituals, symbols all have very important and powerful meaning.  

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I read the Book of Mormon. Moroni said, ask God if it is true. I said, ok. I wanted to know because of that invitation. I never got that idea from the phone directory, a book of math tables, my biography of Einstein, or the latest issue of the New York Times. On several critical juncture in my life, prayer has indeed proven the best way to distinguish between right and wrong. Why should I deny that?

Well I asked this question earlier but why don’t we pray about other books or media to ask God if they are true?  Any author could put words like Moroni’s promise into their text.

 I’m not trying to change your mind or have you stop doing what works well for you.  Just having a discussion.  

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well I asked this question earlier but why don’t we pray about other books or media to ask God if they are true?  Any author could put words like Moroni’s promise into their text.

 I’m not trying to change your mind or have you stop doing what works well for you.  Just having a discussion.  

I responded to that question. Not many authors, if any, include that invitation. Are you aware of any? A Baptist minister once told me if you pray about the Book of Mormon, Satan will answer the prayer.

Why would anyone pray to find out if Harry Potter, Jabberwocky, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, a math tables book, or the New York Times were true? The Bible doesn’t include such an invitation about itself.