Dan Peterson Takes on the "No Evidence At All for The Book of Mormon" Argument

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

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. 

Then that person needs counseling on the nature of spiritual experience and the philosophy showing that spiritual experience IS about one's personal life and is as much "real" as anything else, they do not need history.

What you say above is like saying that a person who has trouble trusting his perception of the world should study history 

Edited March 10, 2021 by mfbukowski

[2BizE]

I’m not convinced by these evidences. Regarding the 3 and 8 witnesses... some say they were able to see the gold tablets...later it was suggested they only saw these things with their spiritual eyes. 
What evidence is there that what was written in the gold plates has anything to do with the Book of Mormon?  Joseph “translated” it using a rock in a hat, not by translating the characters on the plates into English.

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I’m not convinced by these evidences.

That's an understandable position.  I respect it.

16 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Regarding the 3 and 8 witnesses... some say they were able to see the gold tablets...later it was suggested they only saw these things with their spiritual eyes. 

Well, not really.  The historical record does not seem to support what you are saying "was suggested."

16 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

What evidence is there that what was written in the gold plates has anything to do with the Book of Mormon?  

That assumes that there were gold plates.  Nevertheless, I think the evidence for that comes mostly from the text.  Brant Gardner's Second Witness series does a pretty good job of establishing the plausibility of the text in an Old World and then New World setting.  You would then need to compare such textual evidences with what was known by Joseph Smith (or within his reach).  And that's if you assume he wrote it (as opposed to a conspiracy theory, such as the absurd one Analytics presented a few pages back).

16 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Joseph “translated” it using a rock in a hat, not by translating the characters on the plates into English.

And Jesus Christ "rose" from the dead by the power of God, not through medical intervention or natural means.  And yet there are billions of people who believe in that.  As compared to Jesus rising from the grave in a glorified and perfected and immortal physical state, followed by Him ascending into heaven, the notion that Joseph "translated" the Book of Mormon by "the gift and power of God" seems like a walk in the park.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Harry T. Clark]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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. 

I haven't.  The comments I've read from Brant Gardner on this site are always thoughtful and respectful.  However, isn't this approach for looking for mesoamerica in the book of mormon subject to making associations that really aren't there?  How does he guard against this?  I think his approach would be a place to start the investigation but that evidence outside of the book would be needed to make any meaningful connection between Israel prior to 600 BC and the Nephites.

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Quote

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. 

I haven't.  The comments I've read from Brant Gardner on this site are always thoughtful and respectful.

Yes, he's a good egg.

40 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

However, isn't this approach for looking for mesoamerica in the book of mormon subject to making associations that really aren't there? 

I don't think Brant would agree with that characterization.  But I don't think he would say "I have it all sewn up," either.  

Brant and other scholars are seeking to establish a the Book of Mormon as being plausibly originating in the ancient near east and Mesoamerica.  The spiritual/religious value of the text is paramount, but secondary, ancillary evidences can also be helpful.

This is all arising in a partisan context.  We must acknowledge that.  Observant Latter-day Saints look at the data and interpret it in way, critics and opponents look at that data in often different ways.  We all have presuppositions we bring to the table.  None of us is a blank slate.  But no matter how you slice it, the Book of Mormon is really hard to merely dismiss as a 19th-century work of fiction.  I summed things up previously here:

Quote

1. We are coming up on 200 years of The Book of Mormon being subjected to every sort of vigorous critical scrutiny.

2. The Book of Mormon is a substantial and complex book, with extensive indications of ties to the ancient Near East.  See, e.g., this observation by Hugh Nibley: 

Quote

The book itself declares that it is an authentic product of the Near East. It gives a full and circumstantial account of its own origin. It declares that it is but one of many, many such books that have been produced in the course of history and may be hidden in sundry places at this day. It places itself in about the middle of a long list of sacred writings, beginning with the patriarchs and continuing down to the end of human history. It cites now-lost prophetic writings of prime importance, giving the names of their authors. It traces its own cultural roots in all directions, emphasizing the immense breadth and complexity of such connections in the world. It belongs to the same class of literature as the Bible, but, along with a sharper and clearer statement of biblical teachings, contains a formidable mass of historical material unknown to biblical writers but well within the range of modern comparative study since it insists on deriving its whole cultural tradition, even in details, directly from a specific time and place in the Old World.

3. During those 200 years there have been various countervailing explanations for the origins of The Book of Mormon.

4. In my view, none of these countervailing theories has come close to presenting a coherent, evidence-based explanation for the origins of The Book of Mormon.  

5. The durability of The Book of Mormon in the face of 200 years of such intense scrutiny is - to me - "interesting" as a secondary/supplemental indicator that The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be.  Hugh Nibly put it well:

Quote

The Book of Mormon is tough. It thrives on investigation. You may kick it around like a football, as many have done; and I promise you it will wear you out long before you ever make a dent in it.

 

And here:

Quote

For me there is no "smoking gun," no "object or fact that serves as conclusive evidence of a crime or similar act."  This holds true regardless of whether the question is "Is The Book of Mormon what it claims to be?" or "Is The Book of Mormon not what it claims to be?"

Rather, it is the cumulative effect of evidence which has persuaded me.  First and foremost, the "evidence" which forms the foundation for my testimony is a witness of the Holy Spirit.  The process I used (in greatly summarized/truncated from), involved reading The Book of Mormon quite a bit, thinking about it quite a bit, trying to live according to its precepts, and praying about it.  As a result of that process, I felt the Spirit tell it it is what it claims to be.  This process has been ongoing, and has been strengthened and enhanced over time, as long as I continue to read and study and ponder and pray and do good works.

But a witness from The Spirit is not, I think, what you are requesting.  Well, as noted above, there is no single piece of evidence for (or against) the Restored Gospel which is conclusive.  I think that is part of the Plan.  "For we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7).  Conclusive evidence of this type would impede our use of the gift of agency.  So I surmise you are instead interested in what I could call "secondary" or "supplemental" evidences of the Restored Gospel, which collectively/cumulatively result in a quantum of evidence which I have found to be very helpful in confirming what I have accepted on faith to be true.

If you are looking for a compendium of these evidences, I think the two best places to start are compilations by FairMormon (see here) and by Jeff Lindsay (see here).

And here:

Quote

Quote

Thanks for your contribution! I am aware of those wonderful resources. I was asking more people's personal opinions and I would certainly include spiritual experiences 

I had a very strong spiritual experience shortly after I returned from my mission.  For me, it "sealed the deal."  I'd rather not share it here, though.

As far as secondary/supplemental evidences, my top four would probably be as follows (in no particular order):

1. Evidence pertaining to Nahom and Bountiful (see also here).

2. The reality of the Plates and the testimonial evidence pertaining thereto from the Witnesses (see here, here, and here).

3. The existence of the text itself.  That is, textual evidences in The Book of Mormon (Hebraisms, chiasmus . . . too many to list here, but see here).

4. The absence of a coherent, reasonable, countervailing explanation for The Book of Mormon is, to me, quite interesting.  This was a favorite theme of Hugh Nibley (see here for some quotes).  Try as they might, critics and dissidents simply cannot formulate a coherent alternative explanation for where the text came from.  Joseph Smith could not have done it.  Conspiracy theories about Joseph Smith collaborating with unknown others don't work, either.  It is very interesting to me that we are coming up on 200 years of critical scrutiny of The Book of Mormon, and yet nobody has been able to present a coherent explanation that accounts for the existence of the text, the complexity and internal consistency of the narrative, the extremely short time period in which it was "written," the textual evidences that were simply unknown/unknowable to Joseph Smith and his fellows (Nahom/Bountiful is an excellent example of this), the reality of the Gold Plates and the testimony of the witnesses, and so on.

Daniel Peterson addresses this phenomenon here:

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.

 

I have seen this same attitude demonstrated by people who profess membership in the Church, but who reject some of its most important doctrines of the Restored Gospel (centering principally on The Book of Mormon), and who instead have settled on . . . well, anything as long as it is not "the ONE explanation that is the position of the church."   Personally, I don't think they have any coherent countervailing theory.  I don't think they have thought their position through.  I hope they have a change of heart at some point.

A few more salient remarks by Dr. P:

Quote

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 [Page xix]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.

...

In an exchange with a vocal atheist ex-Mormon quite a few years ago, my friend and colleague William Hamblin asked what I regard as a basic and, in the end, unavoidable question: Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that Joseph Smith never had any golden plates pertaining to the Book of Mormon — which was that particular atheist’s position — did Joseph understand that he didn’t have any plates, or did he imagine that he did?

The two options seem to me to exhaust the possibilities. I cannot see, for example, how the approach of the non-Mormon historian Ann Taves to what she terms “the contentious issue of the materiality of the golden plates” can ultimately sustain itself. “The golden plates,” she correctly observes, “take us straight into one of the most interesting challenges: taking the whole range of evidence and views on contentious claims into account and making our way through them as scholars in as transparent a fashion as possible.” “I am setting up the ‘puzzle’ of the golden plates,” explains Professor Taves, “with a claim that each ‘side’ holds dear — that is, that Joseph Smith was not a deceiver or deluded and that there were no ancient golden plates. Setting it up that way provides an intellectual challenge, but one that reflects a religious studies approach at its best.”  Unfortunately for her enterprise, though, if I understand it correctly, it’s not even slightly likely that the two opposing claims can be coherently reconciled. Any truce on the matter is very unlikely to prove stable. Those who deny the existence of the plates will have to posit that he was either detached from reality or a fraud. And those disposed to deny that he was mad or a liar will feel obliged — as they should — to respond.

...

In Professor Hamblin’s case — assuming that Joseph Smith had no golden plates, was he or was he not aware that he didn’t? — his discussion partner responded rather indignantly [Page xxii]that he refused to be imprisoned within such simplistic and juvenile thinking. But, offended dignity aside, the question does eventually need to be answered by anybody who purports to offer an alternative account of the rise of Mormonism.

...

Latter-day Saints, too, need to resist the transformation of the faith that moved their spiritual ancestors from New York to Ohio, from Ohio to Missouri, from Missouri to Illinois, from Illinois to the Great Basin West, and from the Great Basin West around the world into mere metaphor, analogy, or parable. The materiality of the golden plates, brute fact, was, I think, partly intended to defend against precisely that.

 

 

40 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

How does he guard against this? 

By producing competent scholarship.  By presenting evidence and reasoned analysis and argument in relation thereto.

40 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

I think his approach would be a place to start the investigation but that evidence outside of the book would be needed to make any meaningful connection between Israel prior to 600 BC and the Nephites.

Nahom and Bountiful, perhaps?

The Valley of Lemuel?

Daniel Peterson's commentary about Nephi and Asherah?

Jack Welch's legal commentary on the legalities of the slaying of Laban?

Going "up" to Jerusalem?

The "Land of Jerusalem?"

FAIR has some good stuff.  Book of Mormon Central and Jeff Lindsay are also worth a look.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

I’m not convinced by these evidences. Regarding the 3 and 8 witnesses... some say they were able to see the gold tablets...later it was suggested they only saw these things with their spiritual eyes. 
What evidence is there that what was written in the gold plates has anything to do with the Book of Mormon?  Joseph “translated” it using a rock in a hat, not by translating the characters on the plates into English.

Seriously, you can't judge a spiritual book by the spirit of truth it brings?

The Quaran has a few believers  and virtually no historical evidence and that doesn't seem to bother anyone.

[Analytics]

 

Quote

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. 

Okay. If that is the standard, then the Book of Mormon does in fact paint a comprehensive view of the universe. Uncoincidentally, this view is in harmony with Joseph Smith's other revelations and 19th century American religion in general. And it is utterly incompatible with what we now know about the universe through science. That's my point.  

 

Quote

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'").

Really? Okay, let's start with a simple example. In chapters 22-27 of his book The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself, Sean Carroll argues not only that there is no evidence of the supernatural, but that there is surprisingly robust evidence against the supernatural even being plausible--although he doesn't use these specific examples, he proves using quantum field theory that everything from God communicating to Lehi in a vision to all of the miracles in the Book of Mormon to the resurrection of Jesus to priesthood blessings to the existence of spirits in all likelihood are not and could not be real. His arguments to this effect are specific and nuanced.

Can you give me an example or two of scholars who have engaged with the substance of Carroll's arguments in this regard? Surely scholars who are amassing "substantial amounts of evidence in support of the claims of the Church" have addressed the elephant in the room that according to mainstream physics, the truth claims of the Church aren't even plausible. In the section of the book where he explains in detail how the robust findings of quantum mechanics proves that spirits don't exist, Sean Carroll says:

"To address this issue seriously, we wouldn’t necessarily need to have a “Soul Theory” that is as rigorous and well developed as the Core Theory of physics. We would, however, need to be specific and quantitative about how the Core Theory could possibly be changed. There needs to be a way that “soul stuff” interacts with the fields of which we are made—with electrons, or photons, or something. Do those interactions satisfy conservation of energy, momentum, and electric charge? Does matter interact back on the soul, or is the principle of action and reaction violated? Is there “virtual soul stuff” as well as “real soul stuff,” and do quantum fluctuations of soul stuff affect the measurable properties of ordinary particles? Or does the soul stuff not interact directly with particles, and merely affect the quantum probabilities associated with measurement outcomes? Is the soul a kind of “hidden variable” playing an important role in quantum ontology? If you want to be a dualist and believe in an immaterial soul that plays any role whatsoever in who we are as human beings, these questions are not optional. We’re not rigging the game by demanding a full-blown mathematical theory of the soul itself; we’re simply asking how the soul is supposed to affect the mathematical theory of the quantum fields that we already have." (Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 215-216). Penguin Publishing Group.) 

If Mormon scholars have amassed all of this evidence in support of their religion, have they addressed these arguments and started to put together a working hypothesis of how quantum field theory could be modified in order to accommodate their truth claims?

Edited March 11, 2021 by Analytics

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Then that person needs counseling on the nature of spiritual experience and the philosophy showing that spiritual experience IS about one's personal life and is as much "real" as anything else, they do not need history.

What you say above is like saying that a person who has trouble trusting his perception of the world should study history 

I don't see philosophy as a panacea for faith issues, any more than I see historical or archaeological evidence as a cure all. People don't just need one thing. People come to the gospel with different backgrounds, assumptions, expectations, and so forth. And God has a diversity of ways to entice and persuade them to come unto him.

Yes, it would be nice if everyone would just perform Alma's experiment correctly all the time and get the spiritual evidence that is most valuable in assessing the truthfulness of the gospel. But I think God intentionally placed limitations on the persuasiveness of spiritual evidence. Notice that Alma says that in order for the seed to grow into a tree of life, it needs lots of patience, and diligence, and nourishment, lots of repetition of those things. Most spiritual experiences are subtle. They aren't meant to overwhelm their recipients with incontrovertible evidence of divine truth. They only become fully realized for what they are over time, as someone develops the gift of discernment and repeatedly reaps the true joy of the gospel from genuine righteous living. It doesn't reach its full strength over night, and not everyone sees the flaws in themselves that inhibit the full flow of spiritual evidence into their lives. 

These limitations mean that people have ample room to reinterpret spiritual experiences as something other than what they are. This situation was surely part of God's plan. It allows for striving, personal growth, and the development of true desires in ways that overly-persuasive spiritual evidence would likely compromise. But I think it also allows for different types of evidence to be relevant in the quest for truth. Archaeological and historical evidence that helps corroborate the truth claims of the restored gospel and which push back against criticisms in that area can be a very important part of helping people find their way to higher orders of evidence. 

I'm perplexed as to why you push back so persistently against this endeavor, as if it has no value, when clearly it plays or has played an important role to people who cherish the philosophical truths that you hold so dear. 

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm perplexed as to why you push back so persistently against this endeavor, as if it has no value, when clearly it plays or has played an important role to people who cherish the philosophical truths that you hold so dear. 

Where did you get that idea?

I know of no one who fits that category. 

I discovered the philosophy and went looking for a church that fit and had a whopper of a spiritual experience based on Moroni's promise.  

All I had was philosophy and Moroni, I went to church and asked to be baptized. They said I needed to sit through the lessons so I did.

None of the history had any value to me, and still doesn't.

I would appreciate a clarification on that, if you get a chance

To me, the church IS philosophy, applied and institutionally instantiated pretty darn perfectly 

[Ryan Dahle]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

48 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm perplexed as to why you push back so persistently against this endeavor, as if it has no value, when clearly it plays or has played an important role to people who cherish the philosophical truths that you hold so dear. 

Where did you get that idea?

By "this endeavor" I mean the use of archaeological, historical, linguistic, and scientific research as a supplemental evidence to support faith in the Restoration. A significant portion of your posts on this discussion board seem intended to undermine or in someway devalue that endeavor. 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

By "this endeavor" I mean the use of archaeological, historical, linguistic, and scientific research as a supplemental evidence to support faith in the Restoration. A significant portion of your posts on this discussion board seem intended to undermine or in someway devalue that endeavor. 

Simply because it brings ridicule to the church.

I suppose you don't see Broadway plays much? Hear Utah jokes 2 or 3 times a week?  Folks in big cities think we are a primitive Fundamentalist cult that think that God was an alien from Kolob.

In fact, we could have the respect of being the most philosophically sophisticated church, which of course the genuine Church of Jesus Christ ought to be. We are materialists who believe that human potential is unlimited, if we but follow the Ideal Paradigm ,the Covenant Path, given by the Human God. Our belief that matter and energy are one beat Einstein to the punch by 100 years

But instead we are looking for a road sign that says "Welcome to Zarahemla"

 Searching for physical evidence  for the history of the BOM devalues its spiritual and philosophical value.

And you did not answer my question.

 

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

By "this endeavor" I mean the use of archaeological, historical, linguistic, and scientific research as a supplemental evidence to support faith in the Restoration. A significant portion of your posts on this discussion board seem intended to undermine or in someway devalue that endeavor. 

Your Honor, I rise in defense of Brother Bukowski and of his position.   As I understand him, he is a pragmatist.  It's not that he does not believe that Lehi, Sariah, Nephi, Sam, Laman, Lemuel, and so on were not real, live, genuine flesh-and-blood individuals in an actual physical setting, first in the Old World and then in the New.  It's that, for him, any issues relating to the genuineness of these people and of the accounts that, purportedly, they left us (and hence, of historicity, geography, and so on) take a back seat to whether, in a pragmatic sense, the Book of Mormon and the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ "work" in the lives of their adherents: Do they bring forth good fruit?  Do they bring happiness and fulfillment into the lives of their adherents?  Alma 32 advocates a practical, pragmatic approach to the Gospel much like that advocated by Brother Bukowski: Plant the seed; nourish it; does it "swell, sprout, and begin to grow"? if it does "swell, sprout, and begin to grow," then you know that the seed (and the fruit it will bring forth) is good.  That's pragmatism, and that's the approach that Brother Bukowski advocates taking with regard to these things (as fascinating as historicity, geography, and so on, are).

Your Honor, the Defense rests.

(You can pay me later, Mark.)

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Simply because it brings ridicule to the church.

I suppose you don't see Broadway plays much? Hear Utah jokes 2 or 3 times a week?  Folks in big cities think we are a primitive Fundamentalist cult that think that God was an alien from Kolob.

In fact, we could have the respect of being the most philosophically sophisticated church, which of course the genuine Church of Jesus Christ ought to be. We are materialists who believe that human potential is unlimited, if we but follow the Ideal Paradigm ,the Covenant Path, given by the Human God

But instead we are looking for a road sign that says "Welcome to Zarahemla"

 Searching for physical evidence  for the history of the BOM devalues its spiritual and philosophical value.

And you did not answer my question.

 

 

Shhhhh!  You've been "Mirandized," right?  If so, you know that anything you say can and will be used against you in court.  Just be quiet and let me defend you!  That's what you're paying me the big bucks for!

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It allows for striving, personal growth, and the development of true desires in ways that overly-persuasive spiritual evidence would likely compromise. But I think it also allows for different types of evidence to be relevant in the quest for truth. Archaeological and historical evidence that helps corroborate the truth claims of the restored gospel and which push back against criticisms in that area can be a very important part of helping people find their way to higher orders of evidence. 

Oh yeah

Wouldn't it be terrible  if everyone had "overly-persuasive spiritual evidence" ? We don't want to make it too easy and allow them to understand its vagaries through understanding the philosophy behind it, do we?

 Testimony is the language of the heart and they need to be trained in that fact, instead of seeing it as science or "true" history which only exists in quoting personal prejudices about "what really happened ".

 Even a time machine would be unsuccessful in that endeavor because all the observers would come back with a different interpretation of "what really happened" in a spiritual event, anyway.

And then we have the problem of how one "corroborates truth claims" in spiritual matters.

It's a mass of confusion 

[Kenngo1969]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

... Searching for physical evidence  for the history of the BOM devalues its spiritual and philosophical value. ...

I wouldn't go that far.  Now (even though it might be a conflict of interest , but Shhh!  That'll be our little secret), I rise in defense of Brother Dahle.  I don't think that looking for physical evidence of the diminishes the spiritual and philosophical value of it, provided one keeps ever top-of-mind that it is the spiritual witness that is primary, preeminent, and paramount.  (Ooooh!  Alliteration!  How'dya like them apples?! )  Check out Dan Peterson's/FAIR's "Latter-day Saint Scholars Testify":   There need be no conflict between one's spiritual witness and seeking "truth" from other sources, even about the Book of Mormon:   https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/testimonies/scholars.  For the time being, we may see issues surrounding the Book of Mormon and other Latter-day Saint topics as academic pursuits "through a glass, darkly" in some ways, but that doesn't mean we should forsake a historical, archaeological, or other academic paradigm in an effort to better understand the Book of Mormon.  The Doctrine and Covenants commands us to seek knowledge in various fields of endeavor, not just of spiritual truths.  One of the very raisons d'etre of Book of Mormon Central and the other, similar pursuits undertaken by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and by those associated with it is (not to replace but) to buttress a spiritual witness with other evidences for the truth of things relating to the Restoration.

Your Honor, the Defense rests.

You can pay me later, Brother Dahle.

[Kenngo1969]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh yeah

Wouldn't it be terrible  if everyone had "overly-persuasive spiritual evidence" ? We don't want to make it too easy and allow them to understand its vagaries through understanding the philosophy behind it, do we?

 Testimony is the language of the heart and they need to be trained in that fact, instead of seeing it as science or "true" history which only exists in quoting personal prejudices about "what really happened ".

 Even a time machine would be unsuccessful in that endeavor because all the observers would come back with a different interpretation of "what really happened" in a spiritual event, anyway.

And then we have the problem of how one "corroborates truth claims" in spiritual matters.

It's a mass of confusion 

Your Honor, I'm trying to rein in my client!  Sorry!

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Shhhhh!  You've been "Mirandized," right?  If so, you know that anything you say can and will be used against you in court.  Just be quiet and let me defend you!  That's what you're paying me the big bucks for!

There is more truth than fiction in your comment, here counselor! 😱🙉

And why does that siren keep getting louder?

But Ryan and I have been through this discussion before, and we cannot have double jeopardy... can we boss? 🤯🤔

[mrmarklin]

11 hours 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.

There is evidence. Unfortunately, unlike the Romans, the Nephite civilization was succeeded by degenerate people.  Therefore we have no written record of history after 421 CE.  And it is difficult to relate findings with what little we know of how the Nephites lived.  But there are ruins of great civilizations in the Americas, and it’s obvious that there was great knowledge available at one time.  Some have postulated that these peoples were greater than the Romans. 
Are we going to find a sign somewhere that says “Nephi slept here”?  Likely not. I doubt anything definitive will be found in our lifetimes, as only around 2% of all possibilities have been made known up until now. And most of the good ruins post date the Nephites by centuries. 

[Kenngo1969]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There is more truth than fiction in your comment, here counselor! 😱🙉

And why does that siren keep getting louder?

But Ryan and I have been through this discussion before, and we cannot have double jeopardy... can we boss? 🤯🤔

Hmmm.  Depends on what, exactly, you were charged with previously (there are similar but not identical charges on the books, y'know)!

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I wouldn't go that far.  Now (even though it might be a conflict of interest , but Shhh!  That'll be our little secret), I rise in defense of Brother Dahle.  I don't think that looking for physical evidence of the diminishes the spiritual and philosophical value of it, provided one keeps ever top-of-mind that it is the spiritual witness that is primary, preeminent, and paramount.  (Ooooh!  Alliteration!  How'dya like them apples?! )  Check out Dan Peterson's/FAIR's "Latter-day Saint Scholars Testify":   There need be no conflict between one's spiritual witness and seeking "truth" from other sources, even about the Book of Mormon:   https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/testimonies/scholars.  For the time being, we may see issues surrounding the Book of Mormon and other Latter-day Saint topics as academic pursuits "through a glass, darkly" in some ways, but that doesn't mean we should forsake a historical, archaeological, or other academic paradigm in an effort to better understand the Book of Mormon.  The Doctrine and Covenants commands us to seek knowledge in various fields of endeavor, not just of spiritual truths.  One of the very raisons d'etre of Book of Mormon Central and the other, similar pursuits undertaken by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and by those associated with it is (not to replace but) to buttress a spiritual witness with other evidences for the truth of things relating to the Restoration.

Your Honor, the Defense rests.

You can pay me later, Brother Dahle.

Looking for evidence is great if and only if both sides agree it IS evidence, which is hardly the case here.

Has any "anti" ever said "Well ok, that is good evidence but... " ?

I guess I am too skeptical. In God I trust, for all others, it's cash on the barrel head!

 

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Hmmm.  Depends on what, exactly, you were charged with previously (there are similar but not identical charges on the books, y'know)!

Why are you always so fair and honest and nice?

That's no fun!!

 

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

 

... Sean Carroll says:

"To address this issue seriously, we wouldn’t necessarily need to have a “Soul Theory” that is as rigorous and well developed as the Core Theory of physics. We would, however, need to be specific and quantitative about how the Core Theory could possibly be changed. There needs to be a way that “soul stuff” interacts with the fields of which we are made—with electrons, or photons, or something. Do those interactions satisfy conservation of energy, momentum, and electric charge? Does matter interact back on the soul, or is the principle of action and reaction violated? Is there “virtual soul stuff” as well as “real soul stuff,” and do quantum fluctuations of soul stuff affect the measurable properties of ordinary particles? Or does the soul stuff not interact directly with particles, and merely affect the quantum probabilities associated with measurement outcomes? Is the soul a kind of “hidden variable” playing an important role in quantum ontology? If you want to be a dualist and believe in an immaterial soul that plays any role whatsoever in who we are as human beings, these questions are not optional. We’re not rigging the game by demanding a full-blown mathematical theory of the soul itself; we’re simply asking how the soul is supposed to affect the mathematical theory of the quantum fields that we already have." (Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 215-216). Penguin Publishing Group.) 

If Mormon scholars have amassed all of this evidence in support of their religion, have they addressed these arguments and started to put together a working hypothesis of how quantum field theory could be modified in order to accommodate their truth claims?

A few years ago, I spotted someone invoke Dr. Carroll in an attempt to dismiss the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I'll say here and now what I said there and then.  Members of the Church of Jesus Christ are not immaterialists.  To us, there is no such thing as a "immaterial" spirit.  Everything is composed of matter: "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter" (D&C 131:7-8).  See also Encyclopedia of Mormonism [sic] (1992), s.v. "Matter," accessed on line at the following address on March 11, 2021: https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Matter

[Kenngo1969]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Looking for evidence is great if and only if both sides agree it IS evidence, which is hardly the case here.

Has any "anti" ever said "Well ok, that is good evidence but... " ?

I guess I am too skeptical. In God I trust, for all others, it's cash on the barrel head!

 

I don't really care if the other side doesn't think much of my evidence.  I am in a legal dispute right now, in fact, and the other side doesn't think much of my evidence (even though the defense has yet to present any real evidence of its own beyond a mere ipse dixit).  Even if a thousand archaeologists, mesoamericanists, [fill-in-discipline-here, ad infinitum], and so on are not persuaded by the evidence, there is still that one who, combined with a spiritual witness, might be.  We're not commanded to forsake the here-and-now entirely, but, rather, simply to remember the importance of spiritual pursuits and witnesses while pursuing whatever historical, archeological, and other evidence we might be led to pursue.

[Analytics]

7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

A few years ago, I spotted someone invoke Dr. Carroll in an attempt to dismiss the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I'll say here and now what I said there and then.  Members of the Church of Jesus Christ are not immaterialists.  To us, there is no such thing as a "immaterial" spirit.  Everything is composed of matter: "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter" (D&C 131:7-8).  See also Encyclopedia of Mormonism [sic] (1992), s.v. "Matter," accessed on line at the following address on March 11, 2021: https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Matter

That doesn't really contravene the point. Dr. Carroll isn't merely pointing out that the concept of "immaterial matter" is self-contradictory, nor is he saying that every physical effect must have a physical cause. Rather, he is claiming that "the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known." (Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 178)) He is claiming that the most robust theories in all of science offer compelling, positive evidence that if anything like "spiritual matter" existed and was strong enough to have even the subtlest of influence on the neurons in the human brain, physicists would have discovered it by now.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Analytics

[Analytics]

23 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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!

No, it isn't built on a house of cards. It is based on the psychological and sociological impulses that have kept human societies together for millions of years. The Church is a house built upon rock indeed.

I spent 10 minutes browsing through the CES Letter once or twice. I just didn't find it that interesting.

As another example of the type of things I think about, a fascinating book is Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology by Johnjoe McFadden, Jim Al-Khalili, et al. These scientists are looking deeply at how certain biological processes use "quantum spookiness" to execute their functions. It turns out that we are learning how things like photosynthesis, the sense of smell, and the way birds use the earth's magnetic field to get their bearing all rely on esoteric properties of quantum mechanics. In contrast, there is absolutely nothing we've observed in the human brain that isn't fully explained by large-scale mundane electromagnetic forces and such. 

From multiple angles, science is converging on a view of reality that precludes the existence of spirit.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Analytics