Ahab Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 7 minutes ago, ksfisher said: What are thoughts made of? They’re really just electro-chemical reactions—but the number and complexity of these reactions make them hard to fully understand… https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/what-are-thoughts-made-of/ I was using that sentence about thought only as an example of what it means to beg a question, which seems to be just another one of the many ways to say something without any evidence to support what is being said.
mfbukowski Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 55 minutes ago, champatsch said: Allow both meanings and any cogdis will melt away. It's fine to use it only in the original way but adaptive to recognize emerging meaning. Like truth, which now has taken on another sense in expressions like "my truth", a sense closer to 'experience'. Agree. Two meanings each from a different perspective or Wittgensteinian "language game". William James speaks of the appearance/reality distinction which he believes has plagued Western Civilization at least since Plato. And so, through Plotinus, Plato's views were incorporated into early Christian philosophy, which in my opinion, was a leading cause for the apostasy. The divide between "substance and accident", so prominently displayed in Aristotle, and then Aquinas, carried on to Descartes, and to this day we have, through our language, been programmed to believe in the divide between spirit and matter. Well of course our belief is that Spirit IS Matter- and therefore there is no divide between the spiritual world AS we experience it- and "reality" AS WE KNOW IT. Of course there are mirages and mistakes in perception- but that is another thing. And there are alternate interpretations of every word, as anyone knows who has tried to "translate" anything! I think it is very wise of our Muslim brothers and sisters to never use the word "translate" to describe the interpretation of the Q'uran But erasing the appearance/reality divide makes it possible philosophically to make the First Vision "real" and personal revelation just as real. So yes on this view then, Joseph's first vision can be seen to be as "real" as anything we see around us- cars, houses etc. Add to this now the idea that "truth" is not a property "in the world" but a property of sentences, paradigms,points of view etc. with which we agree, we have this phenomenon of speaking of "my truth" vs "your truth" Yet contemporary philosophy, looking back at 2500 years of philosophical writing can do no better at defining "truth" after all these centuries of trying to find something which works philosophically, in light of subsequent philosophical movements showing flaws in the logic of previous movements. In that way philosophy is like science in creating/discovering new paradigms. And so we have "your truth" and "my truth" Perhaps that is a bargain with the devil but at least it works pragmatically to allow us to speak of our church as "true" and actually have some legitimate philosophy behind it, until we have a different paradigm for scriptural interpretation. 1
Popular Post smac97 Posted March 9, 2021 Author Popular Post Posted March 9, 2021 (edited) On 3/7/2021 at 6:56 PM, Analytics said: The way I see it, there is no evidence "at all" for the Book of Mormon in the same way that there is no evidence "at all" for the earth being flat. That's an interesting proposition in a sense, but it also comes across in an a priori, conclusory, Flying-Spaghetti-Monster kind of way. It comes across as an Appeal to Ridicule, "an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration." The "way {you} see it" shuts down the conversation before it even begins. To propose that evidence exists for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon is to be stupid. Ignorant. A rube. Quote In a sense there is a some evidence of a flat earth, just as there is some evidence of a geocentric universe. So perhaps the better statement would be that there is no competent evidence for the Book of Mormon. There is not sufficient evidence for the Book of Mormon. Strange that critics can't even allow that. There is no evidence. Or as you would have it, the only "evidence" at hand is that proffered by hacks and accepted by gullible idiots. Quote The problem with this is that a heliocentric solar system in an expanding universe has a lot more evidence. Ah. This is where things get interesting. By your reckoning, you seem to be proposing that a naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon "has a lot more evidence." Is that fair? If so, then what is this naturalistic theory? And what is the "lot more evidence" that supports it? Quote But it isn't just that there is more evidence for this other theory--it's that the other theory is part of an interconnected understanding of the universe across multiple disciplines. How do you apply this "interconnected understanding" to the Book of Mormon and evidence pertaining to it? Quote Given a comprehensive understanding of everything we know and why, the proposition of the earth being flat raises so many more problems than it answers, the evidence in favor of the earth being flat isn't really evidence at all. Well, not quite. It's evidence, just poor. It's evidence, but not competent or probative or persuasive. Quote It's the same way with the Book of Mormon. The specially arranged showing of the plates to a handful of Joseph Smith's most loyal associates and to nobody else for the express purpose of proving their existence without subjecting them to public viewing or expert examination is evidence that he showed them something. The character and reputations of the witnesses also matters. The subsequent estrangement of several of them from Joseph and the Church, coupled with their continued testimony of what they had seen/experienced, also matters. Quote Sure. "He showed them something" doesn't go very far at all in evaluating the evidence pertaining to the Witnesses. Quote But given how thoroughly anachronistic the actual text of the Book of Mormon is, That's not a "given," though. Quote any explanation is more likely than it being an accurate translation of an actual ancient manuscript. Way too facile and a priori for me. Quote It's more likely that Joseph Smith made it up. That doesn't account for the evidence. The Witnesses. The short production schedule. The witnesses to the translation process. The witnesses to the Plates. The length and complexity and internal consistency of the text. Joseph Smith's limited education and writing ability. Are you not engaging the evidence. You are scoffing at it and skipping over it. That's certainly your prerogative, but it doesn't work to persuade someone like me, who has spent a fair amount of time evaluating the evidence you are ignoring. Quote It's more likely Sidney Rigdon made the plates out of tin. That would have been a neat trick, since Sidney Rigdon did not encounter missionaries or the Book of Mormon from the Church until October 1830, six months after the Book of Mormon was published. How do you account for that in your "more likely" scenario? And what evidence do you have to support it? Meanwhile, we can look at what Signey Rigdon told his son: Quote In 1865, more than two decades after Sidney’s excommunication, John Wycliff Rigdon, who, as a young adolescent, had followed his parents out of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, interviewed his father about the Book of Mormon. "I concluded,” he later wrote, “I would make an investigation for my own satisfaction and find out, if I could, if he had all these years been deceiving his family and the world, by telling that which was not true, and I was in earnest about it. If Sidney Rigdon, my father, had thrown his life away by telling a falsehood and bringing sorrow and disgrace upon his family, I wanted to know it and was determined to find out the facts, no matter what the consequences might be.” In his mid-30s by this time, John hadn’t seen his father for a considerable while. Among other things, though, he’d visited the Mormon settlements in Utah, which, he said, “had not impressed me very favorably toward the Mormon church, and as to the origin of the Book of Mormon I had some doubts.” So he came right to the point: “You have been charged,” he said, “with writing that book and giving it to Joseph Smith to introduce to the world. You have always told me one story; that you never saw the book until it was presented to you by Parley P. Pratt and Oliver Cowdery; and all you ever knew of the origin of that book was what they told you and what Joseph Smith and the witnesses who claimed to have seen the plates had told you. Is this true? If so, all right; if it is not, you owe it to me and to your family to tell it. You are an old man and you will soon pass away, and I wish to know if Joseph Smith, in your intimacy with him for 14 years, has not said something to you that led you to believe he obtained that book in some other way than what he had told you. Give me all you know about it, that I may know the truth.” His father, he recorded, raised his hand above his head and slowly said, with tears running down his cheeks, “My son, I can swear before high heaven that what I have told you about the origin of that book is true. Your mother and sister … were present when that book was handed to me in Mentor, Ohio, and all I ever knew about the origin of that book was what Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith and the witnesses who claimed they saw the plates have told me, and in all of my intimacy with Joseph Smith he never told me but one story, and that was that he found it engraved upon gold plates in a hill near Palmyra, New York. … I believed him, and now believe he told me the truth.” Thoughts? Quote It's more likely that the angel was really an alien doing an anthropology experiment on Joseph Smith. Really? How do you figure "an alien" being a "more likely" explanation than an angel? Quote It's more likely that the devil conjured up the plates. This is you explaining how we should approach evidence regarding the Book of Mormon? Quote But the story that there was a massive Christian civilization in America that made records in reformed Egyptian on metal plates over a period of 1,000 years? "Massive?" Where'd you get that? And what gave you the idea that plate-making was a civilization-wide thing? Quote Given what we know about the world, that's just not possible. Well, so far I've seen you A) resort to the Appeal to Ridicule fallacy by comparing belief in the Book of Mormon to flat-earthism, B) entirely ignore the evidence DCP is pointing to, C) suggest that Sidney Rigdon, who was not introduced to the Book of Mormon or its adherents until well after it has been translated and published, was somehow the fabricator of the plates Joseph showed to the witnesses, D) return to the Appeal to Ridicule fallacy a second time by saying that what Joseph experienced was "more likely" an alien than an angel, E) allude to some alternative naturalistic theory and declare, but do not demonstrate, that it has "a lot more evidence" than the Church's explanation for the origins of the BOM, F) return to the Appeal to Ridicule fallacy a third time by proposing the conjurings of Satan as a "more likely" explanation for the text, and G) substantially mischaracterize (or else entirely ignore) the body of scholarship pertaining to the proposed size of BOM populations and the difficulty and rarity of keeping records on metal plates. This comes across as facile and unserious. Quote Of course you can and undoubtedly do disagree with what I just said. Yes. But more important is why I disagree. It's not because what you have said is reasoned, or based on evidence, or anything like that. It's not. I've been on this board for seventeen years now. I've lost count of how many times I've seen driveby potshots like what you present here. I've spent much of my adult life examining evidence you are a priori ridiculing and ignoring. Of course you can say and do such things, but you'll understand why such glib and facile silliness doesn't do much to persuade me. Quote But when people say there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon at all, that is what I think they are intending to imply. I think they are making DCP's point. I'll quote a previous summary of DCP's overall reasoning on this issue: Quote As Daniel Peterson commented: "It's amazing what Joseph Smith was able to pick up on the western frontier." ... Daniel Peterson has commented on the tendency of critics who, when pressed in an adversarial construct, suddenly go all quiet and agnostic and conveniently ambivalent about such controversies. They are vocally adamant about the Church's position being necessarily and demonstrably wrong, but then become curiously uncurious when asked to provide and substantiate and defend a coherent alternative explanation for, say, the source of the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham. Some excerpts from DCP: Quote I want to suggest something like that in this case, that to me, the explanation of Joseph Smith is simple and elegant, and the alternative explanations just don’t work and they get more and more complex and it’s just too much for me, and so I’ve said sometimes that I simply don’t have the faith to disbelieve Joseph Smith’s story. I just can’t get there. I can’t do it. And I’ve tried. I’ve really tried to give it a serious look. I cannot put together hallucinatory explanations of the witnesses and stealing from Solomon Spaulding and stealing from Ethan Smith, and I’m just mentioning a few, and putting it all together. Joseph Smith, this incredibly learned young man who’s sitting there on the frontier. ... I remember my friend Bill Hamblin once being in communication with a one-time, fairly prominent, ex-member critic of the Church and of the Book of Mormon. And he said, “Look, let’s assume for a moment that you’re right and that Joseph Smith did not have plates. Did he know that he didn’t have plates or did he think that he had the plates? In other words, was he a conscious deceiver, or was he in some sense mad?” To which this critic responded: “I don’t have to lower myself to your simplistic little dichotomies.” Well, see, I think it’s intellectually incumbent upon people like that to, come on, give us an answer to this. Otherwise it’s like guerrilla warfare. You attack and attack and attack, you always withdraw, you never defend territory. You never have to stake out your own explanation, which then will be subject to criticism and attack. I think DCP has a fair point. I think it's intellectually incumbent upon people like you to provide at least some sort of alternative explanation for, say, how Joseph Smith ended up with including a narrative about Abraham teaching astronomy to the Pharaoh. Was it just a lucky guess? See also here (also by Dr. Peterson) (emphasis added): Quote The most serious contemporary criticisms of the Book of Mormon and of Mormonism more broadly tend to come not from self-proclaimed orthodox (i.e., usually Evangelical) Christians, but from self-identified atheistic materialists or naturalists. The Utah-based historian Dale Morgan, largely forgotten today but still much admired in certain small contemporary circles, wrote a 1945 letter to the believing Latter-day Saint historian Juanita Brooks. In it, he identifies the fundamental issue with unusual candor: Quote With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church. In Risen Indeed, Stephen Davis remarks that Quote believers point to something of an embarrassment in the position of those who do not believe in the resurrection: their inability to offer an acceptable alternative explanation of the known facts surrounding the resurrection of Jesus. The old nineteenth-century rationalistic explanations (hallucination, swoon theory, stolen body, wrong tomb, etc.) all seem to collapse of their own weight once spelled out, and no strong new theory has emerged as the consensus of scholars who deny that the resurrection occurred. A similar situation obtains, in my judgment, with regard to the Book of Mormon and certain other elements of the Restoration. While, for instance, this or that aspect of the Book of Mormon can, hypothetically, be accounted for by means of something within Joseph Smith’s early nineteenth-century information environment, a fully comprehensive counterexplanation for Joseph’s claims remains promised but manifestly unprovided. Critics have disagreed over the nearly two centuries since the First Vision about whether Joseph was brilliant or stupid, whether he was sincerely hallucinating or cunningly conscious of his fraud, whether he concocted the Book of Mormon alone or with co-conspirators (their own identity either hotly debated or completely unknown), whether he was a cynical atheist or a pious fraud defending Christianity, and so forth. With respect, I think you are taking a Dale Morgan-esque approach that just doesn't work for me. I think it is problematic to, as Morgan put it, "look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church." This is a heads-the-Church-loses-tails-the-Church-loses approach. ... I continue to feel a bit perplexed at A) critics and skeptics taking a Dale Morgan-esque I-will-look-everywhere-for-explanations-except-to-the-ONE-explanation-that-is-the-position-of-the-church approach to the Church's claims, B) critics and skeptics adopting a "guerrilla warfare" attitude when examining the BOM, BOA, etc. (endlessly disputing the Church's explanation of the BOM, BOA, etc., while not actually getting around to formulating a coherent counter-explanation); C) critics and skeptics suddenly going all quiet and agnostic and conveniently ambivelant about issues pertaining to the Church when pressed to present a coherent counter-explanation for these things, and D) critics and skeptics not really listening to, or meaningfully interacting with, what the Church and its scholars and apologists are actually saying, and instead trying to distort, misconstrue, misstate and mischaracterize what we are saying so as to put us in the worst possible light (such as what Consig and Analytics did re: Givens). Responses like "beats me" and “I don’t have to lower myself to your simplistic little dichotomies" are singularly unimpressive to me, particularly in 2020, and particularly given the wealth of readily-available information and scholarship we have seen come out in the last many years. I returned from my mission in 1995, and ever since then have made studying the Restored Gospel a significant priority in my life. I think it's fair to say that I am both a "defender of the faith" and a long-time consumer of apologetic and scholarly materials. In the aggregate I have found such materials to be very helpful in my faith journey. They are a wonderful supplement to the spiritual and personal experiences I have had which have pursuaded me to that the Church is what it claims to be. Since law school, I have come to appreciate the value of adversarial examination of disputed issues. My daily, bread-and-butter work is to examine factual and legal issues about which the parties pretty much always have divergent viewpoints, asssessments, conclusions, etc. I like how the adversarial process can (can, mind you) help the parties sift through the facts and the law to get to a more accurate and more complete understanding of A) what really happened, and B) what the law should do about what really happened. I have had many experiences in which I have had to backtrack and reconsider my client's factual and/or legal position because my grasp of the facts and/or the law was materially incorrect. My errors have become manifest because, through the adversarial process, people who who do share my perspective/biases have shown me where I went wrong. These are difficult and humbling, but also very useful, learning experiences for me. However, I have also had many other experiences where my grasp of the facts and the law has been largely confirmed and vindicated through this same adversarial setting and process. Having worked vary hard in law school to gain some mastery of the basics of the practice of law, and then having spent 15+ years practicing law, it is gratifying to have had such experiences. I have spent the last 25+ years reading what the Church and its scholars/apologists have said about controversies and difficulties pertaining to the claims of the Church. I have also spent most of that time reading what critics of my faith have to say about such things, and also interacting with many of them in an adversarial setting (message boards). The claims of the Church, and critiques and criticisms of those claims, are examined, and re-examined. I have actively involved myself in many of these examinations. I feel like I am a lot more informed than I was in 1995, and a lot more clear-eyed in my perception of and perspective on the Church and its claims. But more to the point, examining the Church's claims in an adversarial setting has helped me feel vindicated in my assessment of the Restored Gospel. I have long believed that the Church's claims are substantively true, but I have spent the last 25 years testing and debating those claims in an adversarial setting. I have been humbled a lot. I have had to correct and re-assess some of what I believe and why. But in the main, I am very happy with the cumulative results of these efforts. Through revelation, through day-to-day experiences, through prolonged study and examination (including reviewing critical assessments/arguments), I have come to find that the Church's claims are reasonable, resilient, eminently defensible, and substantively true. Thanks, -Smac Edited March 9, 2021 by smac97 7
Ryan Dahle Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 31 minutes ago, smac97 said: I feel like I am a lot more informed than I was in 1995, and a lot more clear-eyed in my perception of and perspective on the Church and its claims. But more to the point, examining the Church's claims in an adversarial setting has helped me feel vindicated in my assessment of the Restored Gospel. I have long believed that the Church's claims are substantively true, but I have spent the last 25 years testing and debating those claims in an adversarial setting. I have been humbled a lot. I have had to correct and re-assess some of what I believe and why. But in the main, I am very happy with the cumulative results of these efforts. Through revelation, through day-to-day experiences, through prolonged study and examination (including reviewing critical assessments/arguments), I have come to find that the Church's claims are reasonable, resilient, eminently defensible, and substantively true. In a way, the tendency for critics to essentially ignore most major categories of evidence which favor the Book of Mormon has actually strengthened my testimony. 3
mrmarklin Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 20 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: In a way, the tendency for critics to essentially ignore most major categories of evidence which favor the Book of Mormon has actually strengthened my testimony. There is a lot of evidence that says the BoM is a correct book, but of course, none that will convince a skeptic. Other than the testimonies of 12 people who saw the plates, all other is circumstantial. But people have been convicted of crimes using circumstantial evidence. So it can be powerful. Countering the above, are the supposed anachronisms in the BoM. But one by one, these are being explained.
Analytics Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 Hi Smac, I had said, "The way I see it, there is no evidence "at all" for the Book of Mormon in the same way that there is no evidence "at all" for the earth being flat." To which you responded... 7 hours ago, smac97 said: That's an interesting proposition in a sense, but it also comes across in an a priori, conclusory, Flying-Spaghetti-Monster kind of way. It comes across as an Appeal to Ridicule, "an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration." You misunderstand. I'm not making an argument. I'm explaining what critics generally mean when they say there is no evidence at all for the Book of Mormon. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: The "way {you} see it" shuts down the conversation before it even begins. To propose that evidence exists for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon is to be stupid. Ignorant. A rube. Proposing the existence of evidence doesn't cause it to exist. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Strange that critics can't even allow that. There is no evidence. Or as you would have it, the only "evidence" at hand is that proffered by hacks and accepted by gullible idiots. Sigh. I never said nor implied that only "hacks," "rubes," "stupid," "ignorant," and "gullible idiots" believe in false things. The fact of the matter is that highly intelligent people believe in all sorts of patently false things. As explained in an article in Scientific American, "Rarely do any of us sit down before a table of facts, weigh them pro and con, and choose the most logical and rational explanation, regardless of what we previously believed. Most of us, most of the time, come to our beliefs for a variety of reasons having little to do with empirical evidence and logical reasoning. Rather, such variables as genetic predisposition, parental predilection, sibling influence, peer pressure, educational experience and life impressions all shape the personality preferences that, in conjunction with numerous social and cultural influences, lead us to our beliefs. We then sort through the body of data and select those that most confirm what we already believe, and ignore or rationalize away those that do not." That is exactly what you are doing here. I'm not going to try to even summarize the evidence against the Book of Mormon. It is quite literally overwhelming. If you'd like to start a thread about it I might participate. But that is for another day. To clarify a couple of my points: 1- I invented an unlikely Sidney Rigdon "theory" to emphasize that this extremely unlikely theory was still more likely than the ancient Book of Mormon Theory. 2- I brought up aliens and demons to point out that even if you proved Joseph Smith needed supernatural help to produce the Book of Mormon, that doesn't mean an honest angel is the most likely supernatural explanation; a supernatural explanation involving a trixter would be more likely because that would be consistent with the overwhelming evidence that the book os 19th century fiction. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 1 hour ago, Analytics said: ... I'm not going to try to even summarize the evidence against the Book of Mormon. It is quite literally overwhelming. ... Well, then, shut 'er down, Clancy! She's pumpin' mud! Will the last person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints please turn out the lights?
mfbukowski Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Analytics said: Hi Smac, I had said, "The way I see it, there is no evidence "at all" for the Book of Mormon in the same way that there is no evidence "at all" for the earth being flat." To which you responded... You misunderstand. I'm not making an argument. I'm explaining what critics generally mean when they say there is no evidence at all for the Book of Mormon. Proposing the existence of evidence doesn't cause it to exist. Sigh. I never said nor implied that only "hacks," "rubes," "stupid," "ignorant," and "gullible idiots" believe in false things. The fact of the matter is that highly intelligent people believe in all sorts of patently false things. As explained in an article in Scientific American, "Rarely do any of us sit down before a table of facts, weigh them pro and con, and choose the most logical and rational explanation, regardless of what we previously believed. Most of us, most of the time, come to our beliefs for a variety of reasons having little to do with empirical evidence and logical reasoning. Rather, such variables as genetic predisposition, parental predilection, sibling influence, peer pressure, educational experience and life impressions all shape the personality preferences that, in conjunction with numerous social and cultural influences, lead us to our beliefs. We then sort through the body of data and select those that most confirm what we already believe, and ignore or rationalize away those that do not." That is exactly what you are doing here. I'm not going to try to even summarize the evidence against the Book of Mormon. It is quite literally overwhelming. If you'd like to start a thread about it I might participate. But that is for another day. To clarify a couple of my points: 1- I invented an unlikely Sidney Rigdon "theory" to emphasize that this extremely unlikely theory was still more likely than the ancient Book of Mormon Theory. 2- I brought up aliens and demons to point out that even if you proved Joseph Smith needed supernatural help to produce the Book of Mormon, that doesn't mean an honest angel is the most likely supernatural explanation; a supernatural explanation involving a trixter would be more likely because that would be consistent with the overwhelming evidence that the book os 19th century fiction. Don't you know that the BOM is a collection of inspired stories about how to live a good life? After all these years you have not figured that out? You still believe that "Facts", tacked together and invented by humans that are simply paradigms, are better than paradigms invented for different purposes? You're a bright guy, why don't you get it? Why are you even arguing this? You are talking about the rules for basketball and believers are talking about rules for pinochle and you think your rules are better? Unbelievable! You are smarter than that. There are the paradigms of logic, and the paradigms of the heart, and both are alive and feed the mind, one as it were proteins and the other, carbohydrates. Both are needed for good health. Edited March 10, 2021 by mfbukowski
Analytics Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: Well, then, shut 'er down, Clancy! She's pumpin' mud! Will the last person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints please turn out the lights? As I quoted from Scientific American above, "Most of us, most of the time, come to our beliefs for a variety of reasons having little to do with empirical evidence and logical reasoning." The Church is going to last a lot longer than I am. 1
Analytics Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Don't you know that the BOM is a collection of inspired stories about how to live a good life? That is precisely what I believe. In contrast, Daniel Peterson and smac97 not only believe in a literal, fundamentalist interpretation of the Book of Mormon, they believe there is more than a negligible amount of evidence in support of that proposition. My point here is that when we enter the paradigm of, "let's figure out the actual truth of the world using a dispassionate evaluation of the actual, mundane evidence," Michael Coe was correct when he said, "The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere." 2
Meadowchik Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Don't you know that the BOM is a collection of inspired stories about how to live a good life? If that really is all it is, and if that is the way the Church treated it, then it would be a different church. But the Church does not teach or preach this view of the Book of Mormon. It does not structure itself around such a perspective. How do you reconcile those differences? 2
Kenngo1969 Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Analytics said: As I quoted from Scientific American above, "Most of us, most of the time, come to our beliefs for a variety of reasons having little to do with empirical evidence and logical reasoning." The Church is going to last a lot longer than I am. Really?!! Well, that's surprising, since the whole thing is nothing but a house of cards! P.S.: By the way, please tell me, at least, that you didn't get all of your supposed "overwhelming evidence against the Book of Mormon" from Jeremy Runnells' Letter to a CES Director! Edited March 10, 2021 by Kenngo1969 1
Kenngo1969 Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 1 hour ago, Analytics said: That is precisely what I believe. In contrast, Daniel Peterson and smac97 not only believe in a literal, fundamentalist interpretation of the Book of Mormon, they believe there is more than a negligible amount of evidence in support of that proposition. My point here is that when we enter the paradigm of, "let's figure out the actual truth of the world using a dispassionate evaluation of the actual, mundane evidence," Michael Coe was correct when he said, "The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere." Well, like I said, Shut 'er down, Clancy! She's pumpin' mud! Will the last person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints please turn out the lights?
Popular Post smac97 Posted March 10, 2021 Author Popular Post Posted March 10, 2021 (edited) 11 hours ago, Analytics said: Hi Smac, I had said, "The way I see it, there is no evidence "at all" for the Book of Mormon in the same way that there is no evidence "at all" for the earth being flat." To which you responded... Quote That's an interesting proposition in a sense, but it also comes across in an a priori, conclusory, Flying-Spaghetti-Monster kind of way. It comes across as an Appeal to Ridicule, "an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration." You misunderstand. I'm not making an argument. "There is no evidence 'at all'" is not an argument? I guess I can go along with that. It's a conclusory assertion. An argument generally includes presentation and analysis of evidence, reasoning and then a conclusion. Quote I'm explaining what critics generally mean when they say there is no evidence at all for the Book of Mormon. You seem to be demonstrating DCP's point. And mine. The "critics" who say the things you attribute to them are not presenting/analyzing evidence, or providing reasoning. Instead, they resort to the things you did in your post, such as the Appeal to Ridicule. Twenty plus years ago an evangelical apologist named John Weldon took a similarly dismissive, glib, the-Mormons-are-obviously-so-out-of-whack-that-I-don't-even-have-to-address-their-scholarship-at-all approach to the Book of Mormon. An evangelical scholar, Paul Owen, took him to the woodshed: Quote I note at the beginning of appendix 1 that Mr. Weldon writes: "The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) publishes literature in defense of Mormonism, especially the Book of Mormon ." This statement is a factual error, not in terms of what is stated, but what goes conspicuously unstated. As Carl Mosser and I have extensively documented, FARMS does far more than simply defend the Book of Mormon: They are actively engaged in "Ancient Research." They are not FMS; they are FARMS. Why is this important? Because, by ignoring FARMS involvement in the wider field of academic historical research, Mr. Weldon hides from his readers (most of whom probably have little exposure to FARMS) the fact that many of the scholars associated with this organization are respected experts in fields directly pertinent to LDS apologetic claims; fields such as Second Temple Judaism, Ancient Near Eastern literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Egyptology. By contrast, no researcher currently involved in apologetic responses to LDS scholarship has any acknowledged expertise in such areas. THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM, WHICH IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY, NO MATTER HOW LONG WE HIDE OUR HEADS IN THE SAND. How on earth can our pastors, most of whom have at best a M.Div. level seminary training, be expected to give their flocks substantive replies to the FARMS literature which is increasingly being used in LDS proselytizing activities? How can our laypeople successfully convince their Mormon friends of the superior plausibility of the truth claims of orthodox Christianity when our researchers in the apologetics community have no better arguments to offer than: FARMS scholarship is obviously wrong, because we already know Mormonism is a false religion? Put yourself in the Mormon's shoes. Would you find that to be a convincing argument? "FARMS scholarship is obviously wrong, because we already know Mormonism is a false religion" is functionally equivalent to what you are saying here: that the BOM is axiomatically and necessarily not what its adherents claim, such that there is no evidence "at all" as to its antiquity, and believing in its antiquity is like believing in falt-earthism. That belief in the BOM is idiocy. Except that doesn't address the evidence. At all. It's just an appeal to ridicule. And it's an appeal that rings hollow when encountered by people who have spent quite a bit of time in examining the evidence. It's an evasion. An excuse to not address the evidence. So Mr. Owen's question is apt: "Put yourself in the Mormon's shoes. Would you find that to be a convincing argument?" He goes on: Quote The heart of the problem is Mr. Weldon's refusal to seriously engage LDS scholarship; and this comes to the surface again under the heading Needless Concerns . Brother Weldon tells us: "But at another level, the alleged new evidence for Mormonism isn't impressive--and it never will be when it comes to defending the truth claims of Mormonism." The intellectual narrow-mindedness displayed here is astounding. Of course, such evidence will fail to convince Brother Weldon; but it sure does seem impressive to folks in the LDS Church! In case Brother Weldon has forgotten, THEY are the ones that we Christians are supposed to be talking to. THEY are the ones who need to be shown why FARMS scholarship does not establish the historical and theological truth claims of the Mormon religion. And they are sure as shootin' going to find FARMS scholarship a lot more "impressive" than the frighteningly lame argument: "In a similar fashion, Mormonism is so clearly false on doctrinal grounds, one need not worry their scholarship could ever prove much of anything." My goodness, does Brother Weldon realize how utterly pathetic that must sound to a Mormon's ears? Does he care?! "The heart of the problem is Mr. Weldon's refusal to seriously engage LDS scholarship." Your post has the same problem. Quote Quote The "way {you} see it" shuts down the conversation before it even begins. To propose that evidence exists for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon is to be stupid. Ignorant. A rube. Proposing the existence of evidence doesn't cause it to exist. I was attempting to be civil. To signal that I understand that reasonable minds can look at the evidence and come away with differing opinions and conclusions about it. I agree with you. The evidence exists without my proposal that it does. The problem, as you are so amply demonstrating, is that critics are not addressing the evidence, and instead seek to shut down the conversation by resorting to insults and ridicule. Quote Quote Strange that critics can't even allow that. There is no evidence. Or as you would have it, the only "evidence" at hand is that proffered by hacks and accepted by gullible idiots. Sigh. I never said nor implied that only "hacks," "rubes," "stupid," "ignorant," and "gullible idiots" believe in false things. Your comparison between believing in the Book of Mormon to flat-earthism was intended to suggest that the former is a mark of . . . intelligence? Quote The fact of the matter is that highly intelligent people believe in all sorts of patently false things. I acknowledge that. But you are once again proving my point. You are not engaging the evidence. You are not providing reasoning. You are summarily and conclusorily declaring that the Book of Mormon is "patently false." That is DCP's point. That was Paul Owen's point. That is my point. Quote As explained in an article in Scientific American, "Rarely do any of us sit down before a table of facts, Alas, before we sit down before a "table of facts," the diners must agree that what is on the table are "facts." As regarding religious claims and ancient historical events and persons, "the facts" are very much in dispute. Further, even when things that could reasonably be called "facts" are on the table, critics generally don't given them a fair hearing. Quote weigh them pro and con, and choose the most logical and rational explanation, regardless of what we previously believed. I think this sounds great. I just wish the critics would give it a whirl. Quote Most of us, most of the time, come to our beliefs for a variety of reasons having little to do with empirical evidence and logical reasoning. There are lots of things for which "empirical evidence" (generally defined as "the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation") is in short supply, or else is subject to various challenges in terms of provenance, interpretation, application and meaning, etc. By way of example: I have my wallet with me today. Where am I keeping it right now? On my desk? In my computer bag? In the back pocket of my pants? In the front? Right? Left? If you were to come back to this thread on March 10, 2026 and read these questions, what sort of "empirical evidence" do you think you could locate to answer them? Another example: Murder is a moral wrong. What "empirical evidence" do you have to verify or falsify a declaration of morality? Meanwhile, your prior post speculated about the Book of Mormon being "more likely" to be the result of Joseph Smith's imagination, Sidney Rigdon "more likely" having fabricating the plates out of tin, Joseph Smith's experiences with angels were "more likely" to have been "an alien doing an anthropology experiment," and the plates were "more likely" to have been "conjured up" by "the devil." This is you showing us how to "sit down before a table of facts, weigh them pro and con, and choose the most logical and rational explanation?" To work with "empirical evidence and logical reasoning?" Quote Rather, such variables as genetic predisposition, parental predilection, sibling influence, peer pressure, educational experience and life impressions all shape the personality preferences that, in conjunction with numerous social and cultural influences, lead us to our beliefs. I quite agree that these variables can come into play. But I submit that the "rather" is unwarranted. I attribute some of my current beliefs to having been raised in the Church. But I have also spent much of my adult life examining the evidence for and against the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ. I have also had many deeply spiritual experiences in relation to the doctrines of the Restored Gospel. These spiritual experiences, as well as the evidences cited by DCP and others, are some of the variables that "shape the personality preferences that, in conjunction with numerous social and cultural influences" to lead me to my beliefs. So it's not "evidence rather than" these other things. It's "evidence in addition to and in tandem with" these other things. Quote We then sort through the body of data and select those that most confirm what we already believe, and ignore or rationalize away those that do not." That is exactly what you are doing here. Oh, the irony. I am pointing to the evidence and saying "I don't think the critics are addressing this stuff." You are asserting that the Book of Mormon is "patently false." You are saying belief in it is aking to flat-earthism. You present no argument, no reasoning. no analysis of the evidence. Just your conclusory say-so. Quote I'm not going to try to even summarize the evidence against the Book of Mormon. It is quite literally overwhelming. It is quite literally nothing of the sort. See? I can make bald conclusory assertions too. They aren't worth much. Quote If you'd like to start a thread about it I might participate. But that is for another day. We've had no shortage of such discussions on this board. I think the truth or falsity of the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot, and ought not, begin with and focus solely on a debate about scholarly evidence. 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 nevertheless helpful. I like these comments by Daniel Peterson: Quote Of course, scholarship does not replace spiritual witness as a source of testimony. As Elder B. H. Roberts (1857–1933) of the Seventy said: “The power of the Holy Ghost … must ever be the chief source of evidence for the Book of Mormon. All other evidence is secondary. … No arrangement of evidence, however skillfully ordered; no argument, however adroitly made, can ever take its place.” Yet scholarship has a definite place even in spiritual matters. The Lord said in an 1829 revelation through the Prophet Joseph Smith to Oliver Cowdery, “Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost” (D&C 8:2; emphasis added). In 1832 the Lord said to the Prophet Joseph Smith, “Seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). As one writer observed: “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.” Yep. Quote To clarify a couple of my points: 1- I invented an unlikely Sidney Rigdon "theory" to emphasize that this extremely unlikely theory was still more likely than the ancient Book of Mormon Theory. You fabricated a story out of thin air, a story that contravenes the historical evidence, a story with zero evidence in support of it, and yet this fabrication is "still more likely than the ancient Book of Mormon Theory?" A admitted falsehood is "more likely?" That seems astoundingly closed-minded, but I'll leave you to it. Meanwhile, I continue to observe that critics say things like you say here in lieu of addressing the evidence. All the time. Quote 2- I brought up aliens and demons to point out that even if you proved Joseph Smith needed supernatural help to produce the Book of Mormon, that doesn't mean an honest angel is the most likely supernatural explanation; a supernatural explanation involving a trixter would be more likely because that would be consistent with the overwhelming evidence that the book os 19th century fiction. Aliens or Satan are are more reasoned and "likely" explanation for the Book of Mormon than Joseph Smith's explanation? This is you demonstrating the Scientific American sit-down-before-a-table-of-facts, weigh-them-pro-and-con, and-choose-the-most-logical-and-rational-explanation" thing? Thanks, -Smac Edited March 10, 2021 by smac97 5
Ryan Dahle Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 (edited) 9 hours ago, Analytics said: I'm not going to try to even summarize the evidence against the Book of Mormon. It is quite literally overwhelming. If you'd like to start a thread about it I might participate. I find it ironic that the same types of reasoning that critics use to dismiss the evidence in favor of the Restoration end up doing more damage when applied to their own categories of evidence. In my experience, the collective argument made by the critics is ultimately incoherent and underwhelming. Edited March 10, 2021 by Ryan Dahle 2
Harry T. Clark Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 It would be nice, though, if there were the types of evidence of Nephite civilization like there is for the Romans. Instead, we are left to rely on reasons why the evidence isn't there. 1
Ryan Dahle Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 8 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said: It would be nice, though, if there were the types of evidence of Nephite civilization like there is for the Romans. Instead, we are left to rely on reasons why the evidence isn't there. I think the evidence which if available for the text's ancient American origins, ancient Israelite background, and miraculous translation is just right. Yes, the working theory for believing Latter-day Saints has to account for why the evidence for complete verification is absent. But, considering the inherent limitations of the available evidence, that isn't really a concern. In fact, I would say that we are often better off than the critics theories in this regard. 2
Analytics Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 1 hour ago, smac97 said: "There is no evidence 'at all'" is not an argument? I guess I can go along with that. It's a conclusory assertion. An argument generally includes presentation and analysis of evidence, reasoning and then a conclusion. Exactly. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: You seem to be demonstrating DCP's point. And mine. The "critics" who say the things you attribute to them are not presenting/analyzing evidence, or providing reasoning. Instead, they resort to the things you did in your post, such as the Appeal to Ridicule. The vast majority of people politely ignore your implausible truth claims. I'm showing you the respect of addressing your topic. I am not ridiculing you, and I am not making an argument. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: The problem, as you are so amply demonstrating, is that critics are not addressing the evidence, and instead seek to shut down the conversation by resorting to insults and ridicule. The actual situation is that the apologists don't present coherent evidence because they don't have a coherent, well-defined comprehensive theory for what the Book of Mormon being "true" actually means. They have little pieces of evidence that they promote while there are entire libraries of contradictory evidence that they ignore and put "on the shelf." 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Your comparison between believing in the Book of Mormon to flat-earthism was intended to suggest that the former is a mark of . . . intelligence? No, it is a mark of being subject to the same cognitive biases all humans are subject to. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Meanwhile, your prior post speculated about the Book of Mormon being "more likely" to be the result of Joseph Smith's imagination, Sidney Rigdon "more likely" having fabricating the plates out of tin, Joseph Smith's experiences with angels were "more likely" to have been "an alien doing an anthropology experiment," and the plates were "more likely" to have been "conjured up" by "the devil." This is you showing us how to "sit down before a table of facts, weigh them pro and con, and choose the most logical and rational explanation?" To work with "empirical evidence and logical reasoning?" Yes. Because we know from the overwhelming evidence that the Book of Mormon is of modern origin. Any supernatural explanation that is consistent with this body of evidence is better than a supernatural explanation that is inconsistent with this evidence. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I quite agree that these variables can come into play. But I submit that the "rather" is unwarranted... I think you misunderstand Shermer's point. He is claiming that chronologically, you formed your beliefs based upon psychological factors. You then enter into the business of trying to rationalize them. As he said immediately before the quote, "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." (emphasis added) Just to give you a brief outline of where I'm coming from, we know from mainstream science that people are subject to powerful cognitive biases such as confirmation bias--including and especially highly intelligent people. For more reading on this, see books such as Why People Believe Weird Things and Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. From these books, we learn that the way Mormonism teaches to build faith is engineered to rely on cognitive biases, not to overcome them. We also know that the human mind works without a "spirit" behind the scenes pulling the strings. See Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain. In terms of earth science, anthropology and history, we know life has been slowly evolving for about a billion years, and over the last few million years human beings emerged as a species from other living organisms. Evolutionary forces are an intrinsic part of everything we know about biology, and evolution precludes any notion of an "intelligent designer" guiding the process. See Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life. Likewise, we know that culture continuously evolves where the one thing that stays the same is that things continuously change. For a sweeping view of how real-world history actually emerges, see Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind and Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies. Most importantly, we know with surprising certainty that there are no supernatural forces that affect our daily lives--we know that you can't use woo-woo forces to bend spoons, float in the air, communicate telepathically, translate ancient documents with the help of spiritual forces, etc. It isn't just that science hasn't discovered them yet. The fact is that there is very compelling evidence that if these alleged forces existed on a scale large enough and strong enough to affect human experience, physicists would have discovered them by now. See The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself. With that cross-discipline, fundamental understanding of reality, the Book of Mormon is clearly 19th Century American fiction. It fits like a glove. There wasn't a massive civilization of Christians in the Americas from 600 B.C. to C.E. 400 who had a religion that wasn't evolving but rather bore an uncanny resemblance to the Christianity of upstate New York in the early 19th Century. Such an event doesn't fit into how the natural world works, to say nothing of the impossible supernatural elements throughout. Is The Book of Mormon true? What does that claim even mean? Before you tell me there is evidence for this hypothesis, tell me what the hypothesis actually is. On the one extreme we have the plain reading, fundamentalist view of the Book of Mormon. On the other extreme it is fiction that people find meaningful. The Book-of-Mormon-is-meaningful-fiction hypothesis is well-defined and consistent with known reality. Anything else approaching the traditional claim means that almost everything we have learned about the world through science is flat-out wrong. I'm not saying this to ridicule you, and I'm not saying it to imply that believers are rubes. As I said earlier, people believe strange things--even smart ones. That is how the human brain works. 1
Harry T. Clark Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said: I think the evidence which if available for the text's ancient American origins, ancient Israelite background, and miraculous translation is just right. Yes, the working theory for believing Latter-day Saints has to account for why the evidence for complete verification is absent. But, considering the inherent limitations of the available evidence, that isn't really a concern. In fact, I would say that we are often better off than the critics theories in this regard. How are we better off? How do I answer a critic who wants to know if there are any artifacts found in the Americas that can be directly traced back to Israel of 600 BC? The best I can say is that perhaps with Lidar or some other technological advance, the evidence will come. I have to admit that without the spiritual, the answer is unsatisfactory. It seems that the best response is to not worry about these questions and focus on the book's content and the spirituality it brings. Edited March 10, 2021 by Harry T. Clark
smac97 Posted March 10, 2021 Author Posted March 10, 2021 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: The vast majority of people politely ignore your implausible truth claims. Sure. And, having ignored them, "the vast majority" will understandably be unfamiliar with them, and also with the substantive arguments made in support of them. Whether these truth claims are true or false is not really a popularity contest. 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: The actual situation is that the apologists don't present coherent evidence because they don't have a coherent, well-defined comprehensive theory for what the Book of Mormon being "true" actually means. Oh, malarky. The Gospel Principles manual is perhaps the most concise yet comprehensive summary of the beliefs and doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is both coherent and well-defined and comprehensive. As to "what the Book of Mormon being 'true' actually means," I suppose we can turn to the dictionary ("true" meaning "being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false ... real; genuine; authentic"). We could then look to the Title Page, the Introduction, the Testimony of the Three Witnesses, the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses, the Brief Explanation about the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith History-1, the various entries pertaining to the Book of Mormon in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, and Chapter 10 of the Gospel Principles manual, the various Book of Mormon manuals published by the Church (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/seminaries-and-institutes/seminary?lang=eng), and so on. The teachings of the Church regarding the Book of Mormon, both as to its origins, translation, and use in our day, are manifestly coherent, well-defined and comprehensive. There are certainly going to be gaps and flaws in our knowledge and understanding, but that's to be expected. And that religious truth claims cannot be defined down to the arbitrarily-created level of precision created by critics of the Church doesn't mean they cannot be defined at all. You are just resorting to more conclusory assertions. And again doing so without addressing the evidence. 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: They have little pieces of evidence that they promote while there are entire libraries of contradictory evidence that they ignore and put "on the shelf." That is singularly and patently untrue. Scholars have amassed substantial amounts of evidence in support of the claims of the Church. These scholars have likewise regularly responded to contrary evidences (rather than, as you falsely put it, "ignore and put {them} 'on the shelf'"). 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: Yes. Because we know from the overwhelming evidence that the Book of Mormon is of modern origin. Again, you are proving DCP's point. You assert as a given that which has yet to be demonstrated. You allude to "overwhelming evidence" but don't marshal it (as compared to the substantial marshaling efforts of FAIR, FARMS, Interpreter, JBMS, Book of Mormon Central, etc.). 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: I think you misunderstand Shermer's point. He is claiming that chronologically, you formed your beliefs based upon psychological factors. But he doesn't explain how I have retained those beliefs. I have a number of family members who, like me, grew up in the church and "formed {their} beliefs based upon psychological factors," and who have later left the Church. I, however, am not. How do you reconcile this disparity? I suspect it'll be something like "people who agree with me and leave are smart and rational, whereas those who don't are not." "Agreement with Roger" is not the benchmark by which I measure my position on the Church. 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: You then enter into the business of trying to rationalize them. As he said immediately before the quote, "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." (emphasis added) He presupposes, but does not define, "weird things," which makes his point fairly useless. "Weird things" is a value judgment. 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: Just to give you a brief outline of where I'm coming from, we know from mainstream science that people are subject to powerful cognitive biases such as confirmation bias--including and especially highly intelligent people. And such biases affect both people who join and stay in the Church and people who do not, right? I'm reminded here of your spectacularly and categorically wrong reading of Terryl Givens. You really, really wanted him to have said something "subversive," so much so that you bought Consig's summary and analysis. As you are doing here, you made broad and conclusory declarations: Quote Your fixation on Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay's theory about "big lists" is really missing the mark here. As a chess analogy, I'm not a very good chess player. At all. But if you put me in the middle of a game with a strong enough position, I could beat any Grand Master or chess supercomputer. The Grand Masters could write hundreds of books about chess, but that wouldn't change the fact that if the pieces are arranged in such a way that even a dimwit like me can see the endgame, I will win. As an example of what I mean, our own consiglieri is an extremely well-read ex-apologist now critic. He has a very articulate and accessible podcast called "Radio Free Mormon". A recent episode is called "The Amazingly Subversive Terryl Givens," which goes through Givens's latest book and shows how it is subversive in the sense that it contains dozens of concessions of anti-Mormon claims that you'd find on a "big list." Givens thinks the end result is beautiful and expresses it all from a perspective of admiration in erudite language, but if you have the patience and intellect to read what he is actually saying and compare it to what the church teaches in manuals and in conference, then one inescapably comes to the conclusion that Givens is admitting it isn't true--it is a fraud. A beautiful inspiring fraud for Givens, but a fraud nonetheless. Listen to the podcast. I responded: Quote So I listened to most of the podcast (it's a bit tedious). I also sent an email to Terryl Givens. I quoted (verbatim) the second paragraph above, and asked him if he would agree with your characterization/conclusion (that he is conceding that the Pearl of Great Price is "a fraud"). He responded within minutes and categorically rejected your characterization (calling "patently false" your allegation that he believes or implies the PoGP is a "fraud"). Given that Givens is perhaps the world's leading expert on what he believes, and given how massively incorrect you were in reaching a purportedly "inescapabl{e}" conclusion derived from applying "patience and intellect to read what he is actually saying," I think you'll understand which of the two sources I will find more persuasive. I later commented: Quote I've been musing the last little bit about Consig's and Analytics' assessment of Terryl Givens. These two are well-seasoned observers of the Church. They know a lot about the Church. It is interesting, then, to see them so spectacularly mis-read Givens. Consig pubilcly characterizes Givens' latest book as "amazingly subversive." Roger publicly declares that if "patience and intellect" are used to read Givens' book, "one inescapably comes to the conclusion that Givens is admitting it isn't true--it is a fraud." Givens himself rebuts these characterizations of his position. "Patently false," he calls them. This does not seem like an isolated incident. I feel like our critics are not really listening to us. They are not understanding us, or accurately describing or characterizing our position. It seems like they don't want to listen or understand or charactize us. They want to make us look bad, so any and every event or story about us must be construed so as to put the Church in a negative light. Abraham Maslow famously said: "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." If one's perspective on the Church is principally defined by implacable hostility (the "hammer"), then every story about the Church can be construed to make us look bad ("as if it were a nail"). Do you acknowledge your "cognitive bias" relative to Terryl Givens? Do you acknowledge how spectactularly wrong you were about him? Anyway, as regarding "cognitive bias," I'm okay with that. We all have it. We all must work with it in mind. The issue here is the evaluation of evidence. I just don't see your brand of critics doing it much, or doing it very well. 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: With that cross-discipline, fundamental understanding of reality, the Book of Mormon is clearly 19th Century American fiction. It is clearly nothing of the sort. There are all sorts of things about the Book of Mormon that make a "19th Century American fiction" difficult or impossible to establish. 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: It fits like a glove. Like OJ Simpson's, maybe. 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: There wasn't a massive civilization of Christians in the Americas from 600 B.C. to C.E. 400 I believe there was. And I believe there is quite a bit of good evidence in support of that proposition. 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: who had a religion that wasn't evolving but rather bore an uncanny resemblance to the Christianity of upstate New York in the early 19th Century. Not really an apt description of the BOM text. But in a sense, you raise a fair point. The Book of Mormon seems tailored to the circumstances under which it came to light. I am reminded of the inspired counsel of Moroni. He was given particular revelations to see the future. Including, I believe, our day. "Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing." (Mormon 8:35.) So it would be understandable, expected even, for the Book of Mormon to address issues relevant to Joseph Smith's day, and to our's. 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: Such an event doesn't fit into how the natural world works, to say nothing of the impossible supernatural elements throughout. Way too a priori for me. The resurrection of Jesus Christ also "doesn't fit into how the natural world works," or at least how we understand it. 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: Is The Book of Mormon true? I believe it is. 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: What does that claim even mean? That it is what it claims to be. That it is what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: Before you tell me there is evidence for this hypothesis, tell me what the hypothesis actually is. See above. 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: On the one extreme we have the plain reading, fundamentalist view of the Book of Mormon. What does that claim even mean? 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: On the other extreme it is fiction that people find meaningful. Right. The "inspired fiction" or "pious fraud" theory. 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: The Book-of-Mormon-is-meaningful-fiction hypothesis is well-defined and consistent with known reality. "Meaningful" is "well-defined?" Come again? As for "consistent with known reality," I'll go along with that. 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: Anything else approaching the traditional claim means that almost everything we have learned about the world through science is flat-out wrong. Conclusory. Facile. Not based on evidence. You're approaching dogmatism here. 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: I'm not saying this to ridicule you, and I'm not saying it to imply that believers are rubes. Right. You did that already when you compared our beliefs to flat-earthism. 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: As I said earlier, people believe strange things--even smart ones. That is how the human brain works. "Strange things" is a value judgment. Thanks, -Smac 3
smac97 Posted March 10, 2021 Author Posted March 10, 2021 55 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said: Quote I think the evidence which if available for the text's ancient American origins, ancient Israelite background, and miraculous translation is just right. Yes, the working theory for believing Latter-day Saints has to account for why the evidence for complete verification is absent. But, considering the inherent limitations of the available evidence, that isn't really a concern. In fact, I would say that we are often better off than the critics theories in this regard. How are we better off? On balance, I think the cumulative evidence is in favor of the claims of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. 55 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said: How do I answer a critic who wants to know if there is any artifacts found in the Americas that can be directly traced back to Israel of 600 BC? Some of the influences on my thinking about this point are Owen and Mosser's "Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?," Daniel Peterson's "Why I Can't Manage to Disbelieve," "'In the Hope that Something Will Stick': Changing Explanations for The Book of Mormon," "The Protean Joseph Smith" and "The Sibling Scandals of the Resurrection," my assessment of various countervailing explanations for the Book of Mormon (see, e.g., here), Neal Rappleye's "'Idle and Slothful Strange Stories': Book of Mormon Origins and the Historical Record" essay, these remarks by Brant Gardner, Michael Ash's "The Impact of Mormon Critics on LDS Scholarship," William Hamblin's "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," Warren Aston's work on the NHM altar (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, and here), and many, many other articles, books, etc. To be sure, there is argument and evidence for the contrary point of view. I freely acknowledge that. I've read a lot of it, and have found some of it to be quite good. But in the aggregate I think Ryan is quite right. We are often better off than the critics theories as pertaining to the origins of the Book of Mormon. 55 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said: The best I can say is that perhaps with Lidar or some other technological advance, the evidence will come. I think you can say a lot more than that. 55 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said: I have to admit that without the spiritual, the answer is unsatisfactory. Yes. The evidences under discussion are, at best, ancillary and secondary. But they sure are getting better and better. Thanks, -Smac 55 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said: It seems that the best response is to not worry about these questions and focus on the book's content and the spirituality it brings. d 2
Calm Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 1 hour ago, Harry T. Clark said: How are we better off? How do I answer a critic who wants to know if there is any artifacts found in the Americas that can be directly traced back to Israel of 600 BC? The best I can say is that perhaps with Lidar or some other technological advance, the evidence will come. I have to admit that without the spiritual, the answer is unsatisfactory. It seems that the best response is to not worry about these questions and focus on the book's content and the spirituality it brings. Have you read Brant Gardner’s work? He in part looks for Mesoamerican evidence in the Book of Mormon rather than the reverse, a sensible technique when exploring a text of unknown provenance, imo.
Popular Post Kevin Christensen Posted March 10, 2021 Popular Post Posted March 10, 2021 (edited) 6 hours ago, Analytics said: That is precisely what I believe. In contrast, Daniel Peterson and smac97 not only believe in a literal, fundamentalist interpretation of the Book of Mormon, they believe there is more than a negligible amount of evidence in support of that proposition. My point here is that when we enter the paradigm of, "let's figure out the actual truth of the world using a dispassionate evaluation of the actual, mundane evidence," Michael Coe was correct when he said, "The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere." What I have learned about the case against the Book of Mormon according to Michael Coe, ranging from the 1973 Dialogue essay, to the PBS Interview, a letter from the 90s, and the John Dehlin interview is that the underlying assumption that if there was any evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, the scientific mind that allowed Coe to make significant contributions in Mesomerican studies cannot be uncritically relied on to produce reliable comments about the Book of Mormon and the state of LDS scholarship. We're supposed to believe that if there was anything to see, people like Coe would be the first to notice and the first to tell everyone about it. But Coe's comments over the decades demonstrate to me that this is not true. For instance, listening Coe and Dehlin weighing on how devastating the absence evidence for brass helmets and iron arrowheads is for the faith of the Saints failed to undermine my personal faith because I had noticed that the Book of Mormon never mentions either brass helmets or iron arrowheads. What the interview turned out to demonstrate at length and in detail is that neither Coe nor Dehlin knows the Book of Mormon at all well, nor have they kept up with LDS scholarship. Recall how they discuss "chiasmus" as something Nibley might have discovered, rather than John Welch, and they do not discuss Allen Christenson's articles on Chiasmus in pre-Columbian texts. At one point Coe offers as an overwhelming argument against the Book of Mormon, the notion that the Great Mother is prominent in Mesoamerica, but the Jews, as everyone knows, were strict Monotheists. Therefore, he thinks, there could be no influence from Israel to Mesoamerica. Check and mate! Game over, nothing to see here folks, move along. But I happen to have read Patai's The Hebrew Goddess, and Dever's Did God Have a Wife, and Barker's The Mother of the Lord, and Daniel Peterson's "Nephi and His Asherah." When Coe makes such an argument, as if the answer is so obvious that no further inquiry is necessary, a further question is "Just whose ignorance is on display here?" Whereas LDS scholarship on the topic of Book of Mormon has made great strides since the 70s, when Coe produced his Dialogue article (consider the 1985 publication of Sorenson's Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon and later Mormon's Codex, and Gardner's Second Witness commentaries, and the emergence of John Clark, Mark Wright, and Brian Stubbs on linguistic issues and widespread evidence for Egyptian, Phonecian, and Hebrew, among several other scholars across a wide range of expertise), the critics have not. And then there have been the results of the recent LiDar surveys that completely revolutionized our picture of Mesoamerican Civilizations. These have all sorts of obvious correlations with the Book of Mormon on points where the Book of Mormon picture was supposedly far fetched. https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/4-ways-the-new-maya-discoveries-may-relate-to-the-book-of-mormon Of course, there is no way that Coe could have known what techniques that emerged decades after his retirement to fish in Montana would bring forth. No way that Dehlin and Coe could discuss it. But that is also something that ought to be weighted against the absolute confidence with which Coe dismisses the Book of Mormon, and what was known to whom and then compared to what we know now. Nibley had a section of Since Cumorah titled "Forever tentative," which attempted to remind us that things are never settled. A closer look always brings surprises. And if we cast our minds back, we should recall that Mark Wright has provided specific examples of high profile Mesoamericanists who did investigate and come to believe the Book of Mormon in light of their wide knowledge of ancient Mesoamerica. So is a supposedly "dispassionate" observer necessarily an all-seeing and infallible observer? Clearly not. And let's not try to slip in the ideology of Positivism in under that sort of misleading label. The more important criterion are "knowledgeable" regarding the subject in question and "perceptive" given what we know at the moment, and "open minded" with respect to what we may yet learn. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited March 10, 2021 by Kevin Christensen 5
Ryan Dahle Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 1 hour ago, Harry T. Clark said: 1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said: I think the evidence which if available for the text's ancient American origins, ancient Israelite background, and miraculous translation is just right. Yes, the working theory for believing Latter-day Saints has to account for why the evidence for complete verification is absent. But, considering the inherent limitations of the available evidence, that isn't really a concern. In fact, I would say that we are often better off than the critics theories in this regard. How are we better off? How do I answer a critic who wants to know if there are any artifacts found in the Americas that can be directly traced back to Israel of 600 BC? The best I can say is that perhaps with Lidar or some other technological advance, the evidence will come. I have to admit that without the spiritual, the answer is unsatisfactory. It seems that the best response is to not worry about these questions and focus on the book's content and the spirituality it brings. My point about being better off was specifically in relation to certain types of absence-of-evidence arguments. For instance, how do critics overcome the collective testimonies of the witnesses? They have to rely heavily on theories for which there is a notable lack of evidence, in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. This isn't the case for situating the Book of Mormon in ancient America. There isn't strong evidence contrary to the Book of Mormon's claims. The limitations in the available data preclude that type of disconfirmation. There is simply a mixed bag where some things in the text are consistent with known or likely features of ancient Mesoamerican societies and other features can't be confirmed. For example, in my view, an absence of evidence for some sort of conspiracy among the witnesses to the Book of Mormon means a lot more than an absence of evidence for, say, horses in Mesoamerica during Book of Mormon times. An absence of evidence for Joseph Smith drafting or outlining the Book of Mormon before dictating it means more than the fact that we haven't yet found an inscription with a known Nephite or Lamanite name. An absence of evidence for some other 19th century author writing the Book of Mormon means more than the absence of of Pre-Classic codices. And so on and so forth. All of the first-hand testimonies of the witnesses, and most of the second-hand statements attributed to them, are overwhelmingly in favor of the Book of Mormon's miraculous origins and artefactual reality. And I would take the circumstantial evidence in favor of their credibility on this issue any day over the evidence to the contrary. In other words, I wouldn't want to trade places with the critics when it comes to the evidence surrounding the witnesses, and I'm really quite unconcerned about absences of evidence from mostly Pre-Classic times in Mesoamerica. The evidence we do have that fits that locale--especially when combined with literary, cultural, and linguistic data pointing to the text's ancient Near Eastern heritage--is more than sufficient for me. I think people are overly concerned with items of material culture and often miss the other categories of important evidence that are at play. Of course, the focus should primarily be on spiritual evidence, but I tend to find that other types of evidence aren't collectively insignificant. They have the power to push back against intellectual doubt, especially during times when an individual might be struggling to understand or trust spiritual experiences. 2
mfbukowski Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 7 hours ago, Analytics said: That is precisely what I believe. In contrast, Daniel Peterson and smac97 not only believe in a literal, fundamentalist interpretation of the Book of Mormon, they believe there is more than a negligible amount of evidence in support of that proposition. My point here is that when we enter the paradigm of, "let's figure out the actual truth of the world using a dispassionate evaluation of the actual, mundane evidence," Michael Coe was correct when he said, "The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere." I take no stance on historicity, it is irrelevant to my spiritual progression. Same with other things like evolution. Who cares? Why bother arguing about things irrelevant to the truth of the gospel? No one worries about the personal traits or personalities of philosophers, or artists, they could be psychotic as Nietzsche probably was or as Van Gogh definitely was, it is THE MESSAGE, the oeuvre of work THAT IS IMPORTANT and how it changes the world So why argue with others about, say, evidence for Nietzsche's sanity and judge his work that way? That totally misses the mark
Recommended Posts