mfbukowski Posted June 21, 2020 Posted June 21, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, Vanguard said: MFB - Could you provide a very brief primer (a launching off point) of this pragmatic philosophy? Give me how YOU would characterize it. : ) It is essentially seeing the world precisely as Alma 32 suggests, in the simplest possible way. But of course thousands of pages have been written by hundreds of philosophers in the 200 years or so from its origins. This will be an extreme simplification. It starts back in the Romantic period where emotion was recognized as a real force in human life, and an important part of it as well. One could say that all of human belief and human behavior is based on practical- or "Pragmatic" needs. One needs a shelter and the knowledge of shelter building evolves from hiding under a tree, to the complex systems we now have, but what drives it all is a human need. All we know of science literature and art derives from human needs and their solution. So how does Alma 32 teach us to solve these needs? It all starts with faith- a hope for things yet unseen which are true- but pragmatism would not use the word "true" but instead the search for what "works" to solve the problem. Some might see that as "expedience" but that is not the case. What "works" is what is always sustainable as technique or technology or a moral belief. People live better in a peaceful society than a war-like one, etc, so it might be said that peace "works better" than war. Stealing someone's wife may start a war, so what "works" is NOT stealing your neighbor's wife. The commandments can be seen as simply a practical - pragmatic- way for peace among people. So in the context of shelter, a house of sticks works better as a shelter than curling up under a tree. Put mud daubing between the sticks, and that works better than no daubing. And so we move forward to air conditioning and 48 inch monitor screens. And how do we move forward? In all contexts, morals and technology- again we apply Alma 32. We see or feel a need, and then interact with the environment to organize it in a better way to fix that need. The method is essentially the scientific method without the correspondence theory of truth- and including human reasons and motivations- psychology- included as a valuable way of seeing the world. It starts with a "hope for things unseen"- a more peaceful community, say, or a better house. We then exercise a "particle of faith" or create an experiment- to see if that belief or technology "works" and produces good results in our lives. So on goes the mud daubing between the sticks, and we are warmer and dryer. That's "good". We stop stealing the neighboring village's wives, and we have peace. That is "good" We have an idea and then experiment on it to see what fruit it produces, then keep refining the ideas that "work" to produce "the measure of the ideas creation" and which do not work. Note that what we have here is really the scientific method- it is experimentation toward achieving results- in some cases "desired results"- the cure of cancer, or the right kind of rocket fuel, or sometimes the motive is pure research, say, in finding new materials, with which one THEN needs to find a purpose. But science is by definition atheistic- it is not possible to even suggest that the answer of how something works is "God did it" William James refined many of these ideas into something he called "radical empiricism" which I will not go into right now, in detail, because it complicates the issue at this point, but will give you a link. Radical empiricism is different from regular empiricism in important ways- primarily it includes human emotions into the scientific method. So for example it agrees with Alma 32- though of course James never read it- that empirical methods can also apply to human values, so ideas containing religious beliefs can be seen as "true or false" by the fruits that acting on the beliefs bear, within a context of believers. So within the context of LDS believers, the BELIEF itself that Joseph Smith had a vision showing God to be anthropomorphic, and that we can be like that anthropomorphic God is valuable simply because it produces actions in LDS people to encourage them to keep the commandments and have righteous lives. Similarly the belief that we are forgiven of our sins brings us joy and peace and is therefore a valuable asset producing good results in our lives, and within the context of the LDS community that makes the belief "true" simply because it works to achieve the purpose of the belief- a peaceful heart and the abandonment of guilt for sins, once we have done "all we can do" to not repeat the sin. So that is an extremely short explanation of how all this works. So the truth or falsity of religious beliefs is based on whether or not the belief is fruitful in our lives- in the same way that adding mud daubing is fruitful in our lives- and confirmed by the experiences one has based on those beliefs. One gives one a dry house, and the other gives one incalculable peace. The historical content does not give one peace, the belief does, UNLESS the historical belief is itself part of the religious belief- what it appears folks hereabouts keep telling me. Still though, without Book of Mormon archaeology in a mature state, belief in the Book's historicity remains faith based. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32547 Edited June 21, 2020 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted June 21, 2020 Posted June 21, 2020 3 hours ago, champatsch said: The text provides us with a huge amount of evidence on the question of whether the Book of Mormon is Joseph Smith's text. I study the syntax in a comparative vein and many of my comparative studies strongly indicate that it is not Joseph Smith's text. The syntax is quite different in a number of ways from biblical syntax, Joseph Smith's syntax, pseudobiblical syntax, and modern syntax. (Comparative studies based on small and large text databases, mostly put together from public domain texts, including Joseph's early writings, almost 30 pseudobiblical texts, the 1611 King James text, the 1769 King James text, 25,000 early modern texts, 200,000 18c texts, Google Books, the early American database Evans, etc.) Yes and though I am not even close to being anything like a scholar in this area, I find your research compelling and incredibly important. For me it simply shows how incredibly complex the historicity of the Book of Mormon may be and how much work remains to be done. Thanks for your reply! I would wonder what your feelings are on how your research could impact Book of Mormon geography, and even its spiritual value while we know so little about its origins. That is of course my concern- I would bracket those kind of questions and not take them on until we know more about the vast implications of your research
mfbukowski Posted June 21, 2020 Posted June 21, 2020 5 hours ago, smac97 said: 6 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Here's the deal: I agree with you!!! But there is no real evidence that those people existed, other than the BOM itself. Quote "But there is no real evidence that those people existed, other than the BOM itself. " Yes, there is. Quote It is circular reasoning to say that those alleged people saw the events of the BOM when relying also on the BOM to prove both the existence of the witnesses and the events. Nobody relies on The Book of Mormon to "prove {} the existence of the witnesses." Nobody disputes the existence of the Witnesses. Their statements are evidence. Quote @smac97 kept avoiding the evidence issue, because none exists! I stopped interacting with you because I felt the discussion was not productive. And I strongly disagree with the second part of the above statement as well. Evidence does, in fact, exist. Quote What evidence do we have for Joseph's vision? Only Joseph testimony. For many of his visions, yes, we ultimately have Joseph's account only. But his account is, nevertheless, evidence. However, what about the vision in D&C 110? Oliver Cowdery shared that one, such that we have more than Joseph Smith's say-so. What about the Statement of the Three Witnesses? That's evidence, too. More than Joseph's say-so. The Statement of the Eight Witnesses. Again, more than Joseph's say-so (though about the Plates, not about divine manifestations). And on and on. From Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations 1820-1844 (edited by John Welch and Erick Carlson), p. 267: Quote {I} a number of instances, others witnessed Joseph Smith's visionary experiences. Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Sidney Rigdon, Heber C. Kimball, Frederick G. Williams, John Murdock, Zebedee Coltrin, and others were present when the Prophet had visions, often seeing the manifestation with him. The recorded statements of these witnesses and co-participants give additional testimony and credibility to the reality of the Prophet's seeric experiences.7 ... 7. Smith, History, 1839, in Jesse, Papers of Joseph Smith, 1:282; Joseph Smith-History 1:54. See also Smith, Biographical Sketches, 85-86. With respect, I think you have your hackles raised, such that you are becoming wedded to an assertion that is not borne out by competent analysis. Part of why I discontinued our prior interaction was because it seemed that you were (or seemed to be) spoiling for a fight. That still seems to be the case. I invite you to reconsider your position and give it some further thought and study. Quote So in all three instances all we have is the testimony of the testator. This is simply not so. We have more than the testimony of Joseph Smith. We have multiple additional witnesses. Plus we have the Plates. Plus we have the text of the translation of The Book of Mormon. Plus we have considerable amounts of probative evidence compiled and explained by various scholars and apologists. These are all pieces of "evidence" over and above "the testimony of the testator." We can certainly discuss the probative weight of these evidences. I'm all for that. But to simply assert or pretend that they do not exist at all just won't do. Quote The Bible gives its own proof for itself. The Book of Mormon gives its own proof for itself. Joseph gives his own proof for himself. The reason I joined the church was because I saw that reason alone could show a way that all three could be true. I agree with this sentiment. Quite a bit. It sure would be nice if you stopped trying to pick a fight. Quote What anti Mormons harp upon is the lack of evidence, so for purposes of debate I take their position on the truth of the Book of Mormon Etc. I don't. Their position is not factually correct. Quote But what I am offering is a way even for atheists to understand and accept the possibility that these religious texts could be useful and give their lives meaning. Logically it is not possible for Spiritual truths to be shown historically. It is confused thinking to think that is possible. I think spiritual truths can be corroborated through forms of evidence other than the Spirit. Quote Actually being involved in the event itself did not convey spiritual truth to them. They had more experience and the history of the event than any scholar could ever have. And yet they still did not see that Jesus was the Christ the Savior and the son of God. History did not convert them then and history does not convert people now. I fully acknowledge that accepting The Book of Mormon is eventually and fundamentally an exercise in faith. But we must build on that. Elder Holland put it well (emphasis added) : Quote My testimony to you tonight is that the gospel is infallibly true and that a variety of infallible proofs supporting that assertion will continue to come until Jesus descends as the ultimate infallible truth of all. Our testimonies aren’t dependent on evidence—we still need that spiritual confirmation in the heart of which we have spoken—but not to seek for and not to acknowledge intellectual, documentable support for our belief when it is available is to needlessly limit an otherwise incomparably strong theological position and deny us a unique, persuasive vocabulary in the latter-day arena of religious investigation and sectarian debate. Thus armed with so much evidence of the kind we have celebrated here tonight, we ought to be more assertive than we sometimes are in defending our testimony of truth. To that point I mention that while we were living and serving in England, I became fond of the writing of the English cleric Austin Farrer. Speaking of the contribution made by C. S. Lewis specifically and of Christian apologists generally, Farrer said: “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.”[10] ... [10] Austin Farrer, “The Christian Apologist,” in Light on C.S. Lewis, ed. Jocelyn Gibb (1965), 26. You seem hostile to the concept emphasized above. If so, and with respect, I invite you to give it some reconsideration. Thanks, -Smac Edited 5 hours ago by smac97 Reply from MB: 1) I said there was no evidence for BOM peoples, and your response was "yes there is". I find that unsatisfactory. Please show me objective evidence for Nephites which a non-member archaeologist would accept as "Nephite", not based on name switching from, say "Mayan" to "Nephite" 2) As should have been clear from the context, the "witnesses" I was discussing were the characters within the Book of Mormon- NOT the so-called 3 and 8 witnesses. So I repeat what I just said above. Please show the existence of A PERSON mentioned in the Book of Mormon to exist anywhere except within the Book of Mormon. Alma will do. 3) You said, quoted above: Quote For many of his visions, yes, we ultimately have Joseph's account only. But his account is, nevertheless, evidence. However, what about the vision in D&C 110? Oliver Cowdery shared that one, such that we have more than Joseph Smith's say-so. What about the Statement of the Three Witnesses? That's evidence, too. More than Joseph's say-so. The Statement of the Eight Witnesses. Again, more than Joseph's say-so (though about the Plates, not about divine manifestations). And on and on. From Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations 1820-1844 (edited by John Welch and Erick Carlson), p. 267: None of this is verifiable, third party, objective evidence and much of it is hearsay. Based on this evidence alone without spiritual experience no one, I maintain, would join the church. It is the spiritual testimony that converts, not the alleged "history" The point is not that these things did not happen- just that we do not have objective historical evidence worthy of converting anyone that they actually occurred. At least I would never have believed it nor joined the church if this is all I had. The others you mentioned can be easily explained as peer pressure, manifesting strong desires to be among the "elect". These were seen as "miracles"- why? Simply because visions alone are rare and most of humanity never experiences ONE much less a few people experiencing the same one. If you had never heard of the church before I think you would not have joined based on these stories, but then again I am basing that on my own experience. I cannot imagine it. 4) You said: Quote With respect, I think you have your hackles raised, such that you are becoming wedded to an assertion that is not borne out by competent analysis. Part of why I discontinued our prior interaction was because it seemed that you were (or seemed to be) spoiling for a fight. That still seems to be the case. I invite you to reconsider your position and give it some further thought and study. You have repeatedly said I "am spoiling for a fight". Sorry, not so. It is just frustrating to say things again and again, and you not providing reasonable answers. MY assertion that there is no objective, replicable evidence for any of this which would cause one to actually join the church, stands in my opinion. With testimony that is a different situation. I went through this process personally and could not possibly believe all these assertions you are making about history. "Competent analysis" in my opinion does not include miracles- again, absent testimony which changes everything! I don't know how that implies that I am trying to start a fight. 5) I am glad we agree that both the Bible and BOM are self- referential in evidence for their own authenticity. 6) I am glad you think that spiritual truths can be "can be corroborated through forms of evidence other than the Spirit." Yet you offer no corroboration for that assertion itself. Spiritual corroboration occurs in personal experience and most statements that I have seen says that testimony is the key to knowing the truth of the gospel. What other kind of corroboration did you have in mind? And then you say: " I fully acknowledge that accepting The Book of Mormon is eventually and fundamentally an exercise in faith. " I find those statements conflicting. And then you quote Elder Holland who is saying what I am saying!! Quote ...but not to seek for and not to acknowledge intellectual, documentable support for our belief when it is available is to needlessly limit an otherwise incomparably strong theological position and deny us a unique, persuasive vocabulary in the latter-day arena of religious investigation and sectarian debate. Thus armed with so much evidence of the kind we have celebrated here tonight, we ought to be more assertive than we sometimes are in defending our testimony of truth. What I am offering is a philosophical system which justifies the experience of visions, feeling the spirit and personal testimony, called "Pragmatism". And yet you think I am starting a fight? No, I am just frustrated that it seems you are not listening. And I think I am offering you "rational argument" of which you seem to approve. I am not at all hostile to what Elder Holland expressed and I agree with it with all my heart! Now what's the problem?
smac97 Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 (edited) 14 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Reply from MB: 1) I said there was no evidence for BOM peoples, and your response was "yes there is". I find that unsatisfactory. I see that. I think this is because you seem less interested in having a substantive discussion, and more interested in having a fight. Quote Please show me objective evidence for Nephites which a non-member archaeologist would accept as "Nephite", not based on name switching from, say "Mayan" to "Nephite" No. You are substantially and unreasonably revising the definition of "evidence" to suit your ideosyncratic preferences. Quote 2) As should have been clear from the context, the "witnesses" I was discussing were the characters within the Book of Mormon- NOT the so-called 3 and 8 witnesses. Here you do it again. You are re-defining "evidence" to exclude evidence that contravenes your rhetorical argument. I find that problematic. Quote So I repeat what I just said above. Please show the existence of A PERSON mentioned in the Book of Mormon to exist anywhere except within the Book of Mormon. Alma will do. Here you do it again. For the third time. Your position is that the absence archealogical evidence definitively and unequivocally establishing the historical existence of a figure from The Book of Mormon (such as Alma) is somehow sufficient to demonstrate that there is no evidence anywhere for The Book of Mormon. You are re-defining "evidence" because you have backed yourself into a rhetorical corner (unnecessarily, IMO). Quote 3) You said, quoted above: Quote For many of his visions, yes, we ultimately have Joseph's account only. But his account is, nevertheless, evidence. However, what about the vision in D&C 110? Oliver Cowdery shared that one, such that we have more than Joseph Smith's say-so. What about the Statement of the Three Witnesses? That's evidence, too. More than Joseph's say-so. The Statement of the Eight Witnesses. Again, more than Joseph's say-so (though about the Plates, not about divine manifestations). And on and on. From Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations 1820-1844 (edited by John Welch and Erick Carlson), p. 267: None of this is verifiable, third party, objective evidence and much of it is hearsay. Fourth time. You are re-defining "evidence" to exclude any that contravenes your position. Quote Based on this evidence alone without spiritual experience no one, I maintain, would join the church. It is the spiritual testimony that converts, not the alleged "history" I quite agree. Accepting the truth claims presented by the Church is ultimately an act of faith arising from spiritual promptings. Nobody is disputing that. Instead, I and others are disputing your overboard assertions about the absence of evidence. Quote The others you mentioned can be easily explained as peer pressure, manifesting strong desires to be among the "elect". Fifth time. You are re-defining "evidence." And no, many of these evidentiary sources can't be "easily explained" that way. For example, all of the Three Witnesses later fell away from the Church and from their prior friendship with Joseph Smith. They would, at that point, have had every motive to back off their "peer pressure"-induced "testimony" of The Book of Mormon, and yet they didn't. I encourage you to read Richard L. Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses to gain a petter understanding of the character of the men you are (mis)characterizing here. Quote 4) You said: Quote With respect, I think you have your hackles raised, such that you are becoming wedded to an assertion that is not borne out by competent analysis. Part of why I discontinued our prior interaction was because it seemed that you were (or seemed to be) spoiling for a fight. That still seems to be the case. I invite you to reconsider your position and give it some further thought and study. You have repeatedly said I "am spoiling for a fight". Sorry, not so. Sure seems like it. Quote It is just frustrating to say things again and again, and you not providing reasonable answers. Then let's part ways. Quote MY assertion that there is no objective, replicable evidence for any of this which would cause one to actually join the church, stands in my opinion. Sixth time. You are heavily re-defining, or artificially constricting, the definition of "evidence." In a No True Scotsman kind of way. Quote With testimony that is a different situation. I went through this process personally and could not possibly believe all these assertions you are making about history. I agree. The witness of the Spirit is important. Vital. Primary. Quote "Competent analysis" in my opinion does not include miracles- again, absent testimony which changes everything! I don't know how that implies that I am trying to start a fight. "Competent analysis" of the historical evidences I am citing - and you are categorically rejecting by artificially restricting and re-defining the term "evidence" - is missing in what you are saying. Quote 5) I am glad we agree that both the Bible and BOM are self- referential in evidence for their own authenticity. I think you and I still have very different ideas on this issue. Quote 6) I am glad you think that spiritual truths can be "can be corroborated through forms of evidence other than the Spirit." Yet you offer no corroboration for that assertion itself. Yes, I have. Quote Spiritual corroboration occurs in personal experience and most statements that I have seen says that testimony is the key to knowing the truth of the gospel. Look again at what I said: "truths can be 'can be corroborated through forms of evidence other than the Spirit.'" You respond to my comment about "evidence other than the Spirit" by talking about "spiritual corroboration." This is a non sequitur. Quote What other kind of corroboration did you have in mind? I already provided some examples. There are many more. Quote And then you say: "I fully acknowledge that accepting The Book of Mormon is eventually and fundamentally an exercise in faith. " I find those statements conflicting. I don't. To be "eventually and fundamentally an exercise in faith" is not to be solely an "exercise in faith." It's also an exercise in study, reasoning, discussion, analysis, application of principles, and yes . . . examination of secondary forms of evidence (which, according to you, don't exist). Quote And then you quote Elder Holland who is saying what I am saying!! Well, no. Not really. Quote What I am offering is a philosophical system which justifies the experience of visions, feeling the spirit and personal testimony, called "Pragmatism". What you are doing is re-defining "evidence" by narrowly construing it. I reject that approach. Quote And yet you think I am starting a fight? Yes. That seems increasingly clear. Quote No, I am just frustrated that it seems you are not listening. I am listening. I just don't agree with your arguments about evidence for The Book of Mormon. Quote And I think I am offering you "rational argument" of which you seem to approve. Again, I disagree with your arguments about evidence. Quote I am not at all hostile to what Elder Holland expressed and I agree with it with all my heart! I don't see it. Elder Holland is a staunch advocate of scholarly research about evidences that - according to your artificially narrow re-definition - don't exist. Quote Now what's the problem? You seem to be spoiling for a fight. And re-defining the word "evidence" to suit your rhetorical argument. You are thereafter rejecting evidences that do not meet your ideosyncratic definition. The challenge here, the discouraging thing, is that you and I agree on the Big Issues. We both believe The Book of Mormon is word of God. We both believe the narrative about its origins described by Joseph Smith, the Witnesses, and the Church. We both believe that acceptance of these things is an exercise in using faith to discern what the Spirit has to say about them. As I have noted previously: Quote In contrast, there are topics like A) the existence of the Gold Plates, B) testimonial evidence about the Plates, C) character evidence about the witnesses to the Plates (and circumstantial evidence about them as well), D) the short time frame in which the text we now have was "written," and - perhaps most important of all - E) various textual evidences in The Book of Mormon. These are, I think, a lot more susceptible to reasoned and evidence-based discussion. Angels are essentially a matter of faith. The existence of the Gold Plates is both a matter of faith and also history. ... Quote The instability of the three and most the eight witnesses as far as their comittment to the Church and Joseph Smith I think is a major negative for thei credibility. There are all sorts of people who find the disaffection of some of the witnesses to strengthen the importance of their testimony, not lessen it. Look at their character. Have you read Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses? Have you read Jeff Lindsay's various articles about them? Have you read this 2006 FAIR presentation by Daniel Peterson? Have you read The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon: A Marvelous Work and a Wonder (an excellent review of which is available here)? Have you read Matthew Roper's "Comments on the Book of Mormon Witnesses: A Response to Jerald and Sandra Tanner"? This article by FAIR? Any of these (this is one of the better bibliographies available about the Witnesses)? ... We have oodles of information about the Three and Eight Witnesses. Their character. Their various estrangements from the Church. Their numerous subsequent statements about their testimony. ... I think discussions such as this can be helpful and illuminating, but only up to a point. I think that if someone is interested in The Book of Mormon, their primary focus should be seeking a spiritual witness of it. Ancillary evidences are helpful to some extent, but they can become a problem if we let them predominate over what really matters. We differ, apparently substantially, in that you have ceded the field to the critics and opponents of the Church relative to matters of "evidence" for The Book of Mormon. I have not. You said: "What anti Mormons harp upon is the lack of evidence, so for purposes of debate I take their position on the truth of the Book of Mormon Etc." See, I strongly disagree with that. There are two reasons: First, I find it to be a substantially inaccurate position. We can certainly have discussions about the competency and overall probative weight and value of secondary evidences for The Book of Mormon. But immediately surrender? Cede the field? Concede to the falsehood that these secondary evidences don't exist at all? No, I will not do that. I don't think we should. Scond, I find your position at odds with Elder Holland's remarks, which encourage us to seek out evidence and arguments to supplement and support what he describes as "that spiritual confirmation in the heart." Elder Holland exhorts us to investigate and study that which you axiomatically and summarily abandon: "intellectual, documentable support for our belief when it is available" comprised of "so much evidence." You are saying no such supporting evidence is available. I am saying that it is. Elder Holland is saying that it is. Our interaction started with our respective thoughts about historicity, which then morphed into a discussion of "historical evidence," which in turn morphed even more into a debate about the meaning of the word (with you, as I have noted, artificially constricting that definition in ways I find problematic). It is presently mostly about you being frustrated and trying to pick a fight with someone who fundementally agrees with you about the origins and worth of The Book of Mormon. I think this is not the most productive discussion to have. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 22, 2020 by smac97
Teancum Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 On 6/9/2020 at 6:34 PM, churchistrue said: My primary goal is to help people who love the church and go through faith crisis and can't make it work with the traditional FairMormon type explanations, for those people I would like them to consider staying in the church with the paradigm I share rather than leave. My secondary goal which relates to my post here is to have the established power brokers in the faith crisis world (ie FairMormon and other Apologists or defenders) accept my paradigm as a valid, albeit inferior, form of perspective/testimony of the church. And to relieve the tension between those in my camp and those in the FairMormon camp and to cooperate together in the effort to save souls and build up the kingdom. Best wishes on this. I tired and at least for me it did not work. You might find more sympathy with the Givens and Bushman types. I don't think FairMormon or many here will be sympathetic to your approach.
champatsch Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 I'm not sure FairMormon is as it is represented to be here. A few years ago, Grant Hardy, speaking at FairMormon, was quite welcoming of the ahistorical approach. I would add, just don't come to that conclusion on the basis that the Book of Mormon text is Joseph Smith's, because that's highly unlikely.
stemelbow Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 2 minutes ago, champatsch said: I'm not sure FairMormon is as it is represented to be here. A few years ago, Grant Hardy, speaking at FairMormon, was quite welcoming of the ahistorical approach. I would add, just don't come to that conclusion on the basis that the Book of Mormon text is Joseph Smith's, because that's highly unlikely. IT's probably more likely it was Joseph Smith's, than the likelihood of it being from Nephi and company. If so, to make all the room for believing it historical and not ahistorical, seems problematic. The only allowable arrow space people can survive in the Church is perhaps the least likely space for a reasonable person to be. Okay let me clarify that point, though. A reasonable person can certainly hold a "it's authentic history" position, but in that case that person is being unreasonable. We all tend to be reasonable and unreasonable in different ways.
champatsch Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 In this case, almost all the faith-guarding power brokers have had the text wrong (taking it to be Joseph Smith's text). It actually clarifies many things to realize that 2n2724 is spot on. Even the biblical quotations point away from Joseph, against received wisdom. So on geographical issues, the wording of the text shouldn't be interpreted according to what we might think Joseph was getting at in wording the text; rather, it should be interpreted according to meanings that were prevalent in the 16c and 17c. Kirk Magleby has undertaken this approach in some of his geographical studies.
smac97 Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 (edited) On 6/9/2020 at 4:34 PM, churchistrue said: My primary goal is to help people who love the church and go through faith crisis and can't make it work with the traditional FairMormon type explanations, for those people I would like them to consider staying in the church with the paradigm I share rather than leave. My secondary goal which relates to my post here is to have the established power brokers in the faith crisis world (ie FairMormon and other Apologists or defenders) accept my paradigm as a valid, albeit inferior, form of perspective/testimony of the church. And to relieve the tension between those in my camp and those in the FairMormon camp and to cooperate together in the effort to save souls and build up the kingdom. I don't see anyone in the "FairMormon camp" calling for those to who reject the historicity of The Book of Mormon to be expelled from the Church, or censured, or punished, or shunned, or anything like that. To the contrary, FAIR has linked to this post by Mike Parker (emphasis added) : Quote BYU’s Maxwell Institute (formerly known as FARMS) has been the best-known champion of Book of Mormon historicity, defending it in its publications and periodicals. For example, in 1993 Robert L. Millet argued, "{i}t matters very much whether there is an actual event, an objective occurrence toward which we look and upon which we build our faith. One cannot exercise saving faith in something untrue (Alma 32:21) or that did not happen, no matter how sweet the story, how sincere the originator or author, or how committed the followers” (“The Book of Mormon, Historicity, and Faith,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/2, 9). BYU’s Religious Studies Center also published an entire book on the subject in 2001, with contributions by nine scholars and two general authorities. Among the detractors of the Book of Mormon’s claim to be a historical record have been several publications from Signature Books, most notably the 1990 volume The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture, edited by Dan Vogel, and 1993’s New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, edited by Brent Metcalfe. My personal belief is that the Book of Mormon is historical, as it claims to be, and that Joseph Smith miraculously translated it from actual ancient records. Having said that, I don’t personally have a problem with someone believing in the “historical fiction” theory and remaining an active, faithful Latter-day Saint. I think the Mormon tent is big enough to accommodate both beliefs. However, I do question the “historical fiction” theory in that I don’t believe it’s coherent. And my biggest obstacle is Moroni. ... And these remarks by Grant Hardy (emphasis added) : Quote Q. What about theories of the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction? A. There are certainly problems with the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but the institutional Church can’t and won’t change. The historical claims of our Mormon scripture are more direct than those made by the Bible, and they are more central to the book’s message—not just with regard to gold plates and angels, but also in the sense of bearing witness that God has a plan for human history, and that he intervenes rather dramatically from time to time (Christ appearing in the ancient Americas is very significant). When people talk about “inspired fiction,” it’s worth thinking harder about what they might mean. Perhaps that the Book of Mormon is a product of human genius, like other literary or religious works. Or it may be the product of general revelation, in which God or some higher power makes himself known to humans, who then communicate that encounter with the Divine though various scriptures such as Buddhist sutras or the Daodejing or the Bhagavad Gita or the Qur’an. Or there may be special revelation in which God inspired Joseph to create the Book of Mormon in such a way that it exemplifies specific truths of unique importance. In any case, however, we might ask, “Can faith in the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction be a saving faith?” My answer is, “Absolutely!” I believe that if someone, at the judgment bar, were to say to God, “I couldn’t make sense of the Book of Mormon as an ancient American codex, given the available evidence, but I loved that book, I heard your voice in it, and I tried to live by its precepts as best I could,” then God will respond, “Well done, my good and faithful servant.” For me, I expect to see the resurrected Nephi and Moroni at the judgment bar. It matters to me that they are real individuals. At the same time, I’m not sure that God will ask, “Did you believe the right things about the Trinity, Joseph Smith, the plan of salvation, and the nature of revelation,” let alone my opinions about polygamy, same-sex marriage, blacks and the priesthood, women’s ordination, politics, or Mormon history. Rather, I believe he will say, “Were you my disciple? Did you strive to know me better? Were you constantly trying to refine your ideas and actions in light of your growing understanding? Were you fully engaged in the Church? How did you treat those with different beliefs and values? And by the way, you were wrong on a number of things you felt strongly about.” See also here. As a rather vocal critic of the "Inspired Fiction" theory myself, I have said this (also here) (emphases added) : Quote Quote There are some who still view it as another testament of Jesus Christ and disbelieve in it's historicity. Yes, I recognize that. And as deeply flawed as that position is, I welcome such persons in fellowship in the Church. And here (repeated here and here and here) : Quote I think those who seek salvation, but who reject the messengers who bring it, are in serious error. Nevertheless, as deeply flawed as their position is, I welcome such persons who buy into the "inspired fiction" meme in fellowship in the Church. We are all of us working to improve our understanding of God and His plans for us. It is not for me to withdraw or withhold fellowship from those who differ from me on this issue. I also won't speculate as to their standing in the Church generally, and will instead leave such things to those who are in authority and have proper stewardship. I have also explained by I find the "Inspired Fiction" theory so problematic. Here is one of the primary reasons: Quote I think the Inspired Fiction folks have not really thought through the ramifications of their proposal. The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship." This is why I find advocacy of this approach problematic. Such advocates are steering others up a spiritual blind alley; a path, I think, which sooner or later will culminate in a crisis of faith and/or a rejection of The Book of Mormon. After all, one who rejects its historicity has already rejected a substantive, even vital, part of the book. Rejecting the rest of it would seem to be just a matter of time. I think an affirmative denial of the book's historicity will, sooner or later, become fatal to a testimony of the book. The foregoing is not mere speculation on my part. As regarding the impact of rejecting the historicity of The Book of Mormon, see this remark on Reddit: Quote If it us fiction then the entire premise of the Church is false. Joseph claimed direct revelation in the translation of the Book of Mormon and founding if the Church. If he made it up, he lied. That said, some of the passages of Scripture especially in the Old Testament seems based upon regional faith based histories. I just could not keep attending a Church if I believed that many of its core foundations are false. And this one: Quote Sadly this line was the a huge crack in my wife's shelf as I was transition out of the church. Her response was, "I thought the Book of Mormon was spiritual because it was historical." I don't think it's healthy to put the literal context of the BoM in second place. Under the same contextual argument one can say "It doesn't matter if Thomas the Train isn't real, as long as kids learn that never giving up is what makes a winner in life." And I'm not against fables and parables, but I do think it's a huge leap to go from "Feel good story" to, "can I have 10% of your money?" The story needs to be true for the church to be true. And this one: Quote The idea of the Book of Mormon being an inspiring work but not necessarily a historical record is where the faith of lot of struggling people is right now, including myself. However, some (most? essentially all?) of church leaders have such a black and white take on the issue that it is difficult to feel there is room for those alternate views. And well, they're right. Our church is based on historical claims, and if those claims fall through, most of the church goes with it, no matter how beautiful the rest of the message. It makes me rather sad, really. And this one: Quote If it's fiction, then what about Joseph Smith's visit from Moroni and the plates. If it's inspired fiction, then Joseph Smith is a liar. I am glad to hear that some folks can retain their membership and activity in the Church while rejecting the historicity of The Book of Mormon. The problem, I think, is that many people can't do this. I appreciate that Grant Hardy (and others) have sought to create room in the "tent" for folks who reject the historicity of The Book of Mormon. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 22, 2020 by smac97
mfbukowski Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I see that. I think this is because you seem less interested in having a substantive discussion, and more interested in having a fight. No. You are substantially and unreasonably revising the definition of "evidence" to suit your ideosyncratic preferences. Here you do it again. You are re-defining "evidence" to exclude evidence that contravenes your rhetorical argument. I find that problematic. Here you do it again. For the third time. Your position is that the absence archealogical evidence definitively and unequivocally establishing the historical existence of a figure from The Book of Mormon (such as Alma) is somehow sufficient to demonstrate that there is no evidence anywhere for The Book of Mormon. You are re-defining "evidence" because you have backed yourself into a rhetorical corner (unnecessarily, IMO). Fourth time. You are re-defining "evidence" to exclude any that contravenes your position. I quite agree. Accepting the truth claims presented by the Church is ultimately an act of faith arising from spiritual promptings. Nobody is disputing that. Instead, I and others are disputing your overboard assertions about the absence of evidence. Fifth time. You are re-defining "evidence." And no, many of these evidentiary sources can't be "easily explained" that way. For example, all of the Three Witnesses later fell away from the Church and from their prior friendship with Joseph Smith. They would, at that point, have had every motive to back off their "peer pressure"-induced "testimony" of The Book of Mormon, and yet they didn't. I encourage you to read Richard L. Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses to gain a petter understanding of the character of the men you are (mis)characterizing here. Sure seems like it. Then let's part ways. Sixth time. You are heavily re-defining, or artificially constricting, the definition of "evidence." In a No True Scotsman kind of way. I agree. The witness of the Spirit is important. Vital. Primary. "Competent analysis" of the historical evidences I am citing - and you are categorically rejecting by artificially restricting and re-defining the term "evidence" - is missing in what you are saying. I think you and I still have very different ideas on this issue. Yes, I have. Look again at what I said: "truths can be 'can be corroborated through forms of evidence other than the Spirit.'" You respond to my comment about "evidence other than the Spirit" by talking about "spiritual corroboration." This is a non sequitur. I already provided some examples. There are many more. I don't. To be "eventually and fundamentally an exercise in faith" is not to be solely an "exercise in faith." It's also an exercise in study, reasoning, discussion, analysis, application of principles, and yes . . . examination of secondary forms of evidence (which, according to you, don't exist). Well, no. Not really. What you are doing is re-defining "evidence" by narrowly construing it. I reject that approach. Yes. That seems increasingly clear. I am listening. I just don't agree with your arguments about evidence for The Book of Mormon. Again, I disagree with your arguments about evidence. I don't see it. Elder Holland is a staunch advocate of scholarly research about evidences that - according to your artificially narrow re-definition - don't exist. You seem to be spoiling for a fight. And re-defining the word "evidence" to suit your rhetorical argument. You are thereafter rejecting evidences that do not meet your ideosyncratic definition. The challenge here, the discouraging thing, is that you and I agree on the Big Issues. We both believe The Book of Mormon is word of God. We both believe the narrative about its origins described by Joseph Smith, the Witnesses, and the Church. We both believe that acceptance of these things is an exercise in using faith to discern what the Spirit has to say about them. As I have noted previously: We differ, apparently substantially, in that you have ceded the field to the critics and opponents of the Church relative to matters of "evidence" for The Book of Mormon. I have not. You said: "What anti Mormons harp upon is the lack of evidence, so for purposes of debate I take their position on the truth of the Book of Mormon Etc." See, I strongly disagree with that. There are two reasons: First, I find it to be a substantially inaccurate position. We can certainly have discussions about the competency and overall probative weight and value of secondary evidences for The Book of Mormon. But immediately surrender? Cede the field? Concede to the falsehood that these secondary evidences don't exist at all? No, I will not do that. I don't think we should. Scond, I find your position at odds with Elder Holland's remarks, which encourage us to seek out evidence and arguments to supplement and support what he describes as "that spiritual confirmation in the heart." Elder Holland exhorts us to investigate and study that which you axiomatically and summarily abandon: "intellectual, documentable support for our belief when it is available" comprised of "so much evidence." You are saying no such supporting evidence is available. I am saying that it is. Elder Holland is saying that it is. Our interaction started with our respective thoughts about historicity, which then morphed into a discussion of "historical evidence," which in turn morphed even more into a debate about the meaning of the word (with you, as I have noted, artificially constricting that definition in ways I find problematic). It is presently mostly about you being frustrated and trying to pick a fight with someone who fundementally agrees with you about the origins and worth of The Book of Mormon. I think this is not the most productive discussion to have. Thanks, -Smac For the record, in the nearly non-existent chance anyone cares, if anyone follows the argument here, I would say there is clear twisting of virtually every assertion I have made, primarily "mistaking" analogy for assertion. I will leave the ascription of motivations for that, to the reader. Edited June 22, 2020 by mfbukowski
smac97 Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 Just now, mfbukowski said: For the record, in the nearly non-existent chance anyone cares, if anyone follows the argument here, I would say there is clear twisting of virtually every assertion I have made. I will leave the ascription of motivations for that to the reader. I don't think I have twisted anything. I'm certainly not trying to. There would be no point. Anyhoo, I think it's best that we agree to disagree and move on. Thanks, -Smac
mfbukowski Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: I don't think I have twisted anything. I'm certainly not trying to. There would be no point. Anyhoo, I think it's best that we agree to disagree and move on. Thanks, -Smac In fairness, I edited the text while you were making this comment.
Recommended Posts