Michael D. Coe, Mesoamericanist and Book of Mormon skeptic, recently died

[bdouglas]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not surprised there are those who see it as more reasonable for their to be a Creator than none.  Just as there are those who see the reverse as more reasonable. 

It all depends on the assumptions we bring to the topic. 

My assumption is we don’t know enough about the universe to determine what is more reasonable.  So while I believe to the core of my being in God, I don’t see that as any more reasonable than to believe in no God. 

“I'm not saying that critics and non-believers in the BOM are like Laman and Lemuel, only that it is a mistake to assume something doesn't exist because you haven't experienced it.”

I agree. 

Well, Richard Bushman thinks that the case for belief in JS, BOM, etc. and the case for non-belief is evenly balanced: thus requiring us to make a choice.

I believe this, and I believe that belief, the choice to exercise faith ... I believe this is a moral choice, a choice that will have eternal consequences, just as any other moral choice.

Edited October 14, 2019 by bdouglas

[SeekingUnderstanding]

56 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

If you can point me to any theory that posits a materialist origin for the BOM that actually works, that makes sense, and doesn't require Joseph Smith to have possessed not just a level of genius that no other man in the history of the world has possessed but an evil genius (necessary for passing off as genuine what was in fact a deliberate fraud) ... if you can point me to any such theory that actually works, I would like to read it.

Once you take off the rose colored glasses of faith, it doesn’t look nearly as extraordinary. It’s amazing to me that you think it is such a work of genius. How many people have LDS apologetics converted? 

[bdouglas]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not surprised there are those who see it as more reasonable for their to be a Creator than none.  Just as there are those who see the reverse as more reasonable. 

It all depends on the assumptions we bring to the topic. 

My assumption is we don’t know enough about the universe to determine what is more reasonable.  So while I believe to the core of my being in God, I don’t see that as any more reasonable than to believe in no God. 

“I'm not saying that critics and non-believers in the BOM are like Laman and Lemuel, only that it is a mistake to assume something doesn't exist because you haven't experienced it.”

I agree. 

Somebody asked Bertrand Russell what he would say if, upon death, he found himself face to face with God. And Russell said, "I would tell him he should've provided more evidence."

But King Benjamin said, "All things denote there is a God." And in Ether 12 (I think), the Lord says, "My grace is sufficient for the meek." 

Likewise, the evidence for the divine origins of the BOM is "sufficient for the meek."

[bdouglas]

deleted

Edited October 14, 2019 by bdouglas

[bdouglas]

22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How many people have LDS apologetics converted? 

Zero?

Quote

"Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish." -- Austin Farrer

The purpose of apologetics is not to convert the unbelieving.

The reverse is also true. Dan Vogel, John Dehlin, Bill Reel, Jeremy Runnells et al are not writing and producing podcasts for people like me, they are writing for the ex-/anti-Mormon faithful. If you are looking for reasons not to believe, they are there to provide them.

If you are looking for reasons to believe, FAIR Mormon and other such sites are there for you, with believing scholars and experts from various fields producing not only essays but books and podcasts.

Edited October 14, 2019 by bdouglas

[bdouglas]

35 minutes ago, JarMan said:

At one time I would have completely agreed with this. Eventually I came to realize the Book of Mormon could be explained naturalistically. Joseph just needed to read a manuscript that was created by someone who did have the knowledge required to produce it. No great leaps of faith are required for this view.  

Well, I agree with Elder Holland, who said, "If Joseph Smith did not give us the Book of Mormon, I would crawl on my hands and knees across deserts and over mountains to find the man who did." (Not an exact quote.)

Edited October 14, 2019 by bdouglas

[JarMan]

5 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

Well, I agree with Elder Holland, who said, "If Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon, I would crawl on my hands and knees across deserts and over mountains to find the man who did." (Not an exact quote.)

The Book of Mormon is remarkable. I think it’s the most remarkable book ever written. But it doesn’t take a leap of faith to think that a remarkable person could have written it. 
 

The world occasionally produces a Shakespeare or a Dostoyevsky. 

[bdouglas]

9 minutes ago, JarMan said:

The Book of Mormon is remarkable. I think it’s the most remarkable book ever written. But it doesn’t take a leap of faith to think that a remarkable person could have written it. 
The world occasionally produces a Shakespeare or a Dostoyevsky. 

I am very familiar with Dostoevsky, also Shakespeare. The BOM is not like Crime and Punishment or Hamlet, or The Brothers Karamazov or Macbeth. It's of a different order entirely. (And when I say this, I'm not talking about quality of writing.)

The only book the BOM can be legitimately compared with is the Bible.

 

Edited October 14, 2019 by bdouglas

[TOmNossor]

26 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

Zero?

The purpose of apologetics is not to convert the unbelieving.

The reverse is also true. Dan Vogel, John Dehlin, Bill Reel, Jeremy Runnells et al are not writing and producing podcasts for people like me, they are writing for the ex-/anti-Mormon faithful. If you are looking for reasons not to believe, they are there to provide them.

If you are looking for reasons to believe, FAIR Mormon and other such sites are there for you, with believing scholars and experts from various fields producing not only essays but books and podcasts.

This thread has touched upon the intellectual case for the BOM.  Then you mentioned Bill Reel.

Perhaps I am nothing but a Bill Reel stalker, but ...

Bill Reel as a critic and non-believer said, “If the BOM is not historical then what Joseph pulled of was a level of genius that puts him in the maybe the top 3 or 4 most incredible acts of intelligence and cohesiveness that I have every seen.”

He is absolutely correct that the BOM if from Joseph Smith and not some divine/historical source is evidence of extraordinary genius.  That he thinks Joseph Smith was capable of this indicates he knows little about genius and/or little about Joseph Smith.

This is a big part of the intellectual reason I embrace the BOM and then move from that to finding the case for the prophethood of President Nelson to be the most reasonable extension.  Maybe the BOM has divine sourcing and the rest of the church is man-made, but I think that less likely that the BOM has divine sourcing and the rest of the church retains this divine mandate.

Dan Vogel is just as wrong about the BOM as the others on your list, but Dan Vogel is a first rate scholar who I don't usually see as being radically inconsistent.

Charity, TOm

 

[JarMan]

25 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

I am very familiar with Dostoevsky, also Shakespeare. The BOM is not like Crime and Punishment or Hamlet, or The Brothers Karamazov or Macbeth. It's of a different order entirely. (And when I say this, I'm not talking about quality of writing.)

The only book the BOM can be legitimately compared with is the Bible.

 

People can create remarkable literary works. 

You seem to be dodging the issue - which you raised and I am responding to - which is that there is an explanation for the Book of Mormon that doesn’t require a leap of faith. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, bdouglas said:

Zero?

So how does that work exactly. Your evaluation of the evidence for the Book of Mormon “require Joseph Smith to have possessed ... a level of genius that no other man in the history of the world has possessed...” to create on his own. 
  

So the evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon is so amazing, it would be basically humanly impossible to create without divine intervention. But this same evidence has convinced zero people? 
  

Again how does that work for you?

Edited October 14, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bdouglas]

23 minutes ago, JarMan said:

People can create remarkable literary works. 

You seem to be dodging the issue - which you raised and I am responding to - which is that there is an explanation for the Book of Mormon that doesn’t require a leap of faith. 

The BOM is really not a literary work. For example, I'm reading along in the BOM, and what I've been reading is Mormon's abridgment. And Mormon only rarely pops in to make editorial comments. He is mostly invisible. But then I get to Ether. Now Ether is Moroni's abridgment of King Mosiah's translation of the 24 gold plates. In fact, Moroni's abridgment may be an abridgment of an abridgment, since we don't know what King Mosiah's translation looked like. But anyway, Moroni is abridging this record, and he is constantly poking his head in to make editorial comments. He is completely unlike his father, who was mostly invisible. 

Fiction does not have this kind of complexity. It just isn't there. And this is just one tiny example of the complexity and messiness one finds in the BOM. Fiction is very tidy; there are no loose ends. "Truth is stranger than fiction but not so tidy." And the BOM is anything but tidy, it is in fact very messy, as real life and real history are messy. But it is, internally, entirely consistent.

There is no genius in the history of creative writing——not Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy or Charles ****ens——who could have achieved such complexity, messiness, and yet internal consistency. (And even if there were, why would they have done something like that?)

Actually I should say, there is no genius in the history of creative writing that we have record of who created anything that even approaches not only the complexity and messiness yet internal consistency of the BOM, but also no one, no creative writer has ever done anything remotely like the BOM in terms of answers to ultimate question, the big questions. Shakespeare, for example, poses ultimate questions, but he has no answers. Neither does Dostoevsky, only a unique take on what is in the Bible. In terms of answers to ultimate questions, the big questions, there is nothing in existence like the BOM except the Bible.

I could go on and on about this, but really I don't have the strength. And no one is ever convinced by these kinds of arguments anyway. Belief is a choice, just as unbelief is a choice.

Edited October 14, 2019 by bdouglas

[TOmNossor]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

The Book of Mormon is remarkable. I think it’s the most remarkable book ever written. But it doesn’t take a leap of faith to think that a remarkable person could have written it. 
 

The world occasionally produces a Shakespeare or a Dostoyevsky. 

We know little about Shakespeare, but Dostoyevsky showed many early signs of genius and gradually grew into the extraordinary author he was (though I would not say he was a universal genius).  

This is not Joseph Smith.  There is nothing to suggest Joseph Smith was on the same path at 4 years of age (when Dostoyevsky was reading and writing).  His first works (mid-20's were impressive, but not the extraordinary productions that he produced in his forties after decades of honing his craft). 

So, the type of genius Bill Reel and you think Joseph Smith was does not life as Joseph did and then explode upon the scene with the BOM.

Goethe was not a normal kid like Joseph.

Dostoyevsky was not a normal kid like Joseph and took decades to hone his craft before he produced Crime and Punishment AND/OR Brothers Karamazov (unlike Joseph who we are asked to believe produced the BOM at 24 or so).

 

I do not believe the BOM belongs in the same class as Brothers Karamazov, but this thread (and some of the links from this thread) give us aspect of the BOM (it is "Preposterous" ) that are tough to explain with Goethe genius or aged Dostoyevsky genius and are totally out of place for 24 year old Joseph Smith who evidenced nothing like these men UNTIL he purportedly began interacting with angels.

The desire to lift up our homosexual brothers when Bill Reel concludes they are hurt by his former church is perhaps a solid compassionate response, but I do not see how I can be asked to take leave of reason and believe Joseph Smith could and did produce the Book of Mormon.  I often struggle to understand the rational case for Joseph Smith did it.  The emotional case (ala Bill Reel), I get.  The weight of being a "peculiar people," I get.  I even get folks who find the coming forth of the Book of Abraham radically problematic.  I just cannot reason my way out of embracing the Book of Mormon as an act of extraordinary genius so radically out of character for Joseph Smith that all the other problems pale (even the BOA) in their evidenciary strength.

Charity, TOm

Edited October 14, 2019 by TOmNossor

[bdouglas]

29 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So how does that work exactly. Your evaluation of the evidence for the Book of Mormon “require Joseph Smith to have possessed ... a level of genius that no other man in the history of the world has possessed...” to create on his own. 
  

So the evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon is so amazing, it would be basically humanly impossible to create without divine intervention. But this same evidence has convinced zero people? 
  

Again how does that work for you?

It is just as hard for me to believe in creation (the existence of the world) but no creator (God) as it is for me to believe Joseph Smith was somehow able to spin the BOM out of his own head (he was like a sponge, and he just absorbed everything around him, even things nobody could have known anything about at that time, etc. etc.).

But still, even with all of the evidences for the existence of a God, a Creator, there are people who find the faith of the Atheists/Agnostics more compelling than they do the faith of the Believers in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

And so it is with the BOM. For my part, I find the reasons for belief in the BOM more compelling than those for non-belief——this in addition to the witness of the Spirit.

Edited October 14, 2019 by bdouglas

[Calm]

Jarman takes the third option, I believe.  Joseph ripped off someone else's work (my paraphrase, not his)

Edited October 14, 2019 by Calm

[bdouglas]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Jarman takes the third option, I believe.  Joseph ripped off someone else's work (my paraphrase, not his)

But who created the work Joseph Smith ripped off?

And even if this were the case, how does one account for the books of Moses and Abraham, the amazing revelations in the D & C, not to mention the King Follet sermon and everything else?

I would say that the person who gave us the books of Moses and Abraham and the revelations in the D & C also gave us the BOM.

Edited October 14, 2019 by bdouglas

[TOmNossor]

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So how does that work exactly. Your evaluation of the evidence for the Book of Mormon “require Joseph Smith to have possessed ... a level of genius that no other man in the history of the world has possessed...” to create on his own. 
  

So the evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon is so amazing, it would be basically humanly impossible to create without divine intervention. But this same evidence has convinced zero people? 
  

Again how does that work for you?

I joined the church seeing within the church a truth that was, "Joseph couldn't do it and the devil wouldn't do it."  It was many years before I had what folks would call a testimony.  

Daniel Peterson offered a construction a long time ago that I will probably butcher.

1. History / Doctrine A   is taught by missionaries and in Sunday School.  It is simple and takes little time to convey.  It presents the church as clearly true.  It is not some intricately designed piece of logic that demands our consideration.  It is preposterous and we are asked to pray about it.

2. Histoy / Doctrine B is taught be our critics.  It is simple and take little time to convey.  It presents the church as clearly false.  We are asked to not pray about such a ridiculous thing (Catholic Answers has a document whose sole purpose is to convince anyone reading it to not pray about the BOM or the CoJCoLDS).  

3. History / Doctine C is taught by LDS scholars and apologist (oh the horror, "apologists."  Dan Vogel is an apologist).  It presents all the data of History / Doctrine B, but its conclusions are that the church is true (or at least possibly or likely true).  We are occasionally asked to discard our wrong ideas about infallible prophets or everyone has a black or white hat on.  And it takes a long time.

 

I think many folks join based on A.   Many folks leave or refuse to join based on B.  Few folks who have rejected the church based on B every pursue C.  It is folks who embraced A who pursue C and find it compelling.  Some who leave return, some never leave, but few put in the time to join based on C.

 

That is what I think.

Charity, TOm   

[bdouglas]

13 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

I joined the church seeing within the church a truth that was, "Joseph couldn't do it and the devil wouldn't do it."  It was many years before I had what folks would call a testimony. 

I would change this to, "Joseph couldn't do it and the devil couldn't do it either." That leaves God.

(The "devil couldn't do it" because the devil is incapable of originality, of what is called "creative genius", which comes from the Lord, the fountain of light and truth.)

Edited October 14, 2019 by bdouglas

[JarMan]

40 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

We know little about Shakespeare, but Dostoyevsky showed many early signs of genius and gradually grew into the extraordinary author he was (though I would not say he was a universal genius).  

This is not Joseph Smith.  There is nothing to suggest Joseph Smith was on the same path at 4 years of age (when Dostoyevsky was reading and writing).  His first works (mid-20's were impressive, but not the extraordinary productions that he produced in his forties after decades of honing his craft). 

So, the type of genius Bill Reel and you think Joseph Smith was does not life as Joseph did and then explode upon the scene with the BOM.

Goethe was not a normal kid like Joseph.

Dostoyevsky was not a normal kid like Joseph and took decades to hone his craft before he produced Crime and Punishment AND/OR Brothers Karamazov (unlike Joseph who we are asked to believe produced the BOM at 24 or so).

 

I do not believe the BOM belongs in the same class as Brothers Karamazov, but this thread (and some of the links from this thread) give us aspect of the BOM (it is "Preposterous" ) that are tough to explain with Goethe genius or aged Dostoyevsky genius and are totally out of place for 24 year old Joseph Smith who evidenced nothing like these men UNTIL he purportedly began interacting with angels.

The desire to lift up our homosexual brothers when Bill Reel concludes they are hurt by his former church is perhaps a solid compassionate response, but I do not see how I can be asked to take leave of reason and believe Joseph Smith could and did produce the Book of Mormon.  I often struggle to understand the rational case for Joseph Smith did it.  The emotional case (ala Bill Reel), I get.  The weight of being a "peculiar people," I get.  I even get folks who find the coming forth of the Book of Abraham radically problematic.  I just cannot reason my way out of embracing the Book of Mormon as an act of extraordinary genius so radically out of character for Joseph Smith that all the other problems pale (even the BOA) in their evidenciary strength.

Charity, TOm

I don't believe Joseph was capable of writing the Book of Mormon. I think he simply copied an existing manuscript created by an early modern author.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

51 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

I joined the church seeing within the church a truth that was, "Joseph couldn't do it and the devil wouldn't do it."  It was many years before I had what folks would call a testimony.  

Daniel Peterson offered a construction a long time ago that I will probably butcher.

1. History / Doctrine A   is taught by missionaries and in Sunday School.  It is simple and takes little time to convey.  It presents the church as clearly true.  It is not some intricately designed piece of logic that demands our consideration.  It is preposterous and we are asked to pray about it.

2. Histoy / Doctrine B is taught be our critics.  It is simple and take little time to convey.  It presents the church as clearly false.  We are asked to not pray about such a ridiculous thing (Catholic Answers has a document whose sole purpose is to convince anyone reading it to not pray about the BOM or the CoJCoLDS).  

3. History / Doctine C is taught by LDS scholars and apologist (oh the horror, "apologists."  Dan Vogel is an apologist).  It presents all the data of History / Doctrine B, but its conclusions are that the church is true (or at least possibly or likely true).  We are occasionally asked to discard our wrong ideas about infallible prophets or everyone has a black or white hat on.  And it takes a long time.

 

I think many folks join based on A.   Many folks leave or refuse to join based on B.  Few folks who have rejected the church based on B every pursue C.  It is folks who embraced A who pursue C and find it compelling.  Some who leave return, some never leave, but few put in the time to join based on C.

 

That is what I think.

Charity, TOm   

A is correct. I don’t know much about B. C is unsatisfying for many former believers and is not sufficient to convince any (or at least a vanishing small percent) of those outside the belief paradigm. For me, I started with A, but A is full of logical contradictions and impossibilities. I looked to C for answers, never to B. It’s great C works for you, but based on where I stand, C only works if you really really want it to.

i think this article sums it up nicely:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/youth/article/when-you-have-questions?lang=eng&_r=1. You can get to C if you “ask questions” but not if you question. I also think Muehelstein nailed it when he stated:

”And so I start out with an assumption that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon and anything else that we get from the restored gospel is true, therefore, any evidence I find I will try and fit into that paradigm.”

So if you start with the conclusion that the church is true, and you ask all your questions as “how does this prove the church is true” then the evidence sure looks overwhelmingly like the church must be true. 

Edited October 14, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[JarMan]

28 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

But who created the work Joseph Smith ripped off?

And even if this were the case, how does one account for the books of Moses and Abraham, the amazing revelations in the D & C, not to mention the King Follet sermon and everything else?

I would say that the person who gave us the books of Moses and Abraham and the revelations in the D & C also gave us the BOM.

There are some good candidates for who created the original manuscript, but that's not really the issue here. The point is that there are people who were a lot more educated than Joseph who did have the ability.

I think it is clear that the creator of the Book of Mormon is definitely not the creator of the D&C and PofGP. The doctrines are way too different. For example, the Book of Mormon has no pre-existence, three kingdoms, eternal families, or modern temple ordinances. 

[JarMan]

23 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

I would change this to, "Joseph couldn't do it and the devil couldn't do it either." That leaves God.

(The "devil couldn't do it" because the devil is incapable of originality, of what is called "creative genius", which comes from the Lord, the fountain of light and truth.)

Not even a traditional believer thinks God did it. Mormon and Moroni did it. They may have been inspired by God. But a third party, such as an early modern writer, could also have been inspired. If you allow that an ancient, inspired prophet could have produced the Book of Mormon, then you have to allow that a prophet of a different age could have, as well.

[bdouglas]

17 minutes ago, JarMan said:

There are some good candidates for who created the original manuscript, but that's not really the issue here. The point is that there are people who were a lot more educated than Joseph who did have the ability.

I think it is clear that the creator of the Book of Mormon is definitely not the creator of the D&C and PofGP. The doctrines are way too different. For example, the Book of Mormon has no pre-existence, three kingdoms, eternal families, or modern temple ordinances. 

Well there might have been someone circa 1500-1600 who translated the gold plates into Early Modern English, and that this is the translation Joseph Smith was reading from his seer-stone——since it does appear, from the work of Skousen et al, that JS was reading off an existing translation to Oliver Cowdery. But I have no idea who this person might be.

Edited October 14, 2019 by bdouglas

[SeekingUnderstanding]

47 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

It is just as hard for me to believe in creation (the existence of the world) but no creator (God) as it is for me to believe Joseph Smith was somehow able to spin the BOM out of his own head (he was like a sponge, and he just absorbed everything around him, even things nobody could have known anything about at that time, etc. etc.).

But still, even with all of the evidences for the existence of a God, a Creator, there are people who find the faith of the Atheists/Agnostics more compelling than they do the faith of the Believers in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

And so it is with the BOM. For my part, I find the reasons for belief in the BOM more compelling than those for non-belief——this in addition to the witness of the Spirit.

If I understand you correctly, it’s your position that the world is so complex and wonderful/beautiful, you can’t understand how it could exist without God? You feel similarly about the Book of Mormon? I will just point out that lack of knowledge is not proof of anything other than ignorance. I look at the same world, full of creatures like the emerald cockroach wasp. As you may know, this wasp paralyzes a cockroach and lays its young on top of it. It then buries the cockroach alive. The young hatch and eat the cockroach alive. If this is a world created by divine design, I’m not sure I want to meet the designer. 
 

 

[bdouglas]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If I understand you correctly, it’s your position that the world is so complex and wonderful/beautiful, you can’t understand how it could exist without God? You feel similarly about the Book of Mormon? I will just point out that lack of knowledge is not proof of anything other than ignorance. I look at the same world, full of creatures like the emerald cockroach wasp. As you may know, this wasp paralyzes a cockroach and lays its young on top of it. It then buries the cockroach alive. The young hatch and eat the cockroach alive. If this is a world created by divine design, I’m not sure I want to meet the designer. 
 

 

Well this is the conclusion Darwin came to (by looking at wasps). But other people have come to a different conclusion——Isaac Newton, for example. Belief, or non-belief, comes down to choice.

A cliche comes to mind—— We see things not as they are, but as we are. The atheist looks out on creation and fixates on wasps (which have no apparent purpose in the Great Chain of Being), while a believer (Isaac Newton, or C S Lewis) looks at the same creation and sees God's handiwork.

It all comes down to choice.