The Gold Plates

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Ok. Agree. You have a text that you can use to see if it seems like an ancient text.  Yet oven if it has ancient attributes it could still be a fabrication. 

I agree.  But the fabrication theory is pretty difficult in terms of evidence.  Apparently nobody, from the most ardent Latter-day Saint to the most ardent skeptic/critic, has been able to muster much in the way of evidence that Joseph Smith had the ability to write it.  If so, that takes us into plagiarism and/or conspiracy territory.  These alternative theories have, in my view, really not held up well.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

I have faith because I have examined the evidence and received spiritual promptings confirming the divinity of the Restoration.  For me, the ultimate source of knowledge is the Spirit, but the catalyst through which that source is made manifest is the Book of Mormon.  It has to be accounted for.  The statements of the witnesses have to be accounted for.  

The text of The Book of Mormon exists.  The LDS Church has presented an explanation as to how that text came to exist.  Just ask any missionary. 

In contrast, critics and dissidents have presented alternative explanations as to the origins of the text.  That is certainly their prerogative.  But at that point they are the ones making a claim.  They are the ones asserting that the Church's teachings about the origins of the book are factually false.  They are the ones making assertions about naturalistic or quasi-religious-but-still-rejecting-the-Church's-position explanations for The Book of Mormon.  The "Inspired Fiction" theory is an example of such countervailing explanations for the existence and content of the text, as is the Spaulding-Rigdon Theory (and other "multiple author" theories), the "Joseph Smith as the sole author" theory, the "View of the Hebrews" theory, Grant Palmer's "The Golden Pot" theory,  "The Late War" theory, and so on.

So the problem arises when critics and dissidents A) reject the LDS Church's explanation for the Book of Mormon (their prerogative, but bear with me...), B) present an alternative naturalistic (or the oh-so-weird hybrid of fraudulent and inspired) explanation, C) fail to substantiate or provide evidence for such alternative explanations, and D) complain about being mistreated when they are called on their poor reasoning, lack of evidence, etc.

I have found these countervailing theories to be very flawed in, to the extent such things exist, their reasoning, their assessment of relevant evidence, and so on.  Conjecture and evidence-free speculation predominate.  For example, some of the "Inspired Fiction" folks positively twist themselves up in knots trying to explain how Joseph Smith was a "pious fraud" who was inspired by God to write the plates, but who also fabricated a fake set of plates, who lied to or colluded with the Witnesses about presenting false testimonies about these plates, who spent the rest of his life lying about the plates and the origins of The Book of Mormon, and also about how Joseph Smith was alternatively insane or profoundly mentally ill when he did all of these things (hence the "pious fraud" moniker), and also about how all the prophets and apostles from Joseph Smith to now have either been complicit in perpetuating this massive fraud or else have been collectively and uniformly duped and deceived by it, and that God is somehow the author and instigator of this massive web of lies and deceit.

So yes, when the Church presents claims about The Book of Mormon, then the Church has duty to substantiate its position on that issue.  In this I think the Church and its members have done a rather good job of A) focusing on having "the Spirit" be the primary means of conversion, while also B) marshaling some quantum of secondary, non-dispositive "evidence" (the Witness statements about the Plates, textual evidences, Skousen's work, etc.).

Likewise, when critics and dissidents present alternative claims about The Book of Mormon, then it is their duty to substantiate their positions on that issue.  In this I think they have . . . not done very well at all.

Again, the text of The Book of Mormon exists.  It should be accounted for.  In 2004 Daniel Peterson wrote an excellent article on this issue: "'In the Hope that Something Will Stick': Changing Explanations for The Book of Mormon".  It's worth a read.  Essentially, he posits that the Church's position is that The Book of Mormon is a translation, through divine means, of an ancient historical text.  He further posits that the critics' position is that The Book of Mormon is a fraud, that it is not a translation of an ancient historical text.  

Well, if that's their position, then I think they need to defend it.  I think they have done a poor job of this so far.

Of course, the critics/opponents of the Church are not obligated to provide a coherent counter-explanation for The Book of Mormon.  But the point is, they have not been able to.  We're coming up on nearly 200 years since the original publication of the text, and yet when the chips are down, and when a well-informed person like Daniel Peterson (or Ryan Dahle) argues for the plausibility of the LDS position, we don't get reasoned responses and rebuttals.  We get glib sarcasm.  We get curt dismissals.  We get anything but an engagement of the evidence.

This is part of why Daniel Peterson "can't manage to disbelieve," and why he suggests to critics (correctly, in my view) that "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."

So yes, the text could be a "fabrication."  But so far I have not seen any coherent or supported-by-competent-evidence-and-analysis theory to support such a claim.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Quote

We cannot examine the plates.  We cannot have experts in languages review then and compare it to the translation. 

Yes.  But how does this merit a derisive "convenient?"   In the context of the Restoration, the absence of the Plates is apparently necessary.

our really need to let this one go. I explained quite well why I used the word and in context it is not derisive.  Con men do all sorts of things to perpetuate a fraud that on examination seem convenient.

"Derisive" means "expressing contempt or ridicule."

So you are not "expressing contempt or ridicule" when you compare Joseph Smith to "Con men do{ing} all sorts of things to perpetuate a fraud?"

More to the point, I'm less interested in the derisiveness of your "convenient" comment than I am in its meaning.  It seems like a dodge rather than a substantive argument.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

In the context of the Restoration, the absence of the Plates is apparently necessary.

As noted this is just an affirmation of faith in you gospel.  NOthing more.

I think it's a bit more than that.  The absence of the Plates is a feature, not a bug.  You are asserting that it is a bug, not a feature.  I could say that your position "is just an affirmation of your loss of faith, nothing more," but that would not get us far.

I am saying that, given the context, the absence of the Plates - like the "veil of forgetfulness" - makes sense.  If the Restoration narrative is what it claims to be, then it is unreasonable to expect the Plates to be around for empirical analysis.

The Plates aren't here.  That's just the state of things.  You are attaching significance to this absence, as if the absence of the Plates is evidence of fraud.  I think that overreaches by a country mile.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

 

If Joseph was so intent on controlling the "narrative," and if he was a charlatan, why did he go to the all the effort of fabricating plates and then have witnesses to testify of them? 

Why did he leave them on a table to be touched by Emma when she was cleaning? 

Why put himself and his family in substantial danger by telling other people that he had come into possession of a large quantity of what was apparently "gold?"

Wouldn't it have been easier for him to just claim "God told me in my mind to write this down...", and then proceed with dictation?  (But then that takes us back to . . . the translation process and the resulting text, which also need to be accounted for.)

 

People take all sorts of risks to commit fraud that may lead to financial or other power.  I think he needed to build at least a group that he could rely on to "substantiate" his claims.  Did he deceive them?  Were they in on it?  I don't know.

Free-wheeling, evidence-free speculation and innuendo.  That's all you are doing here.

That is your privilege, of course, but I find such stuff ad hoc, contrived, and overall weak tea.  From my quote above: "Of course, the critics/opponents of the Church are not obligated to provide a coherent counter-explanation for The Book of Mormon.  But the point is, they have not been able to.  We're coming up on nearly 200 years since the original publication of the text, and yet when the chips are down, and when a well-informed person like Daniel Peterson (or Ryan Dahle) argues for the plausibility of the LDS position, we don't get reasoned responses and rebuttals.  We get glib sarcasm.  We get curt dismissals.  We get anything but an engagement of the evidence."

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Accepting the Book of Mormon "on faith" is certainly required, but not just faith.  We have never been asked to just take Joseph's word (or the Church's) for it.  We are instead exhorted to read, study, ponder, and pray.  In 2022, I think such studying/pondering can incorporate secondary, ancillary sources of information, but in the end conversion still requires faith borne of a spiritual confirmation.

I understand this.  I think it  more a faith proposition than evidentiary

I quite agree.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

and find the evidence rather weak and grasping.

I find alternative theories even more so.  

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And you essentially admit that. 

I have admitted nothing of the sort.  I affirmatively reject what you are imputing onto me.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

We are not called upon to take a test having "forgotten everything" relevant to the test.  We have the scriptures (particularly the Book of Mormon) and their substantive teachings.  An open canon.  Prophets and apostles.

Yes I was actually going to mention that there are a few things you have to go on for this grand test.  Still I doubt you would want to take the bar exam with such thin and limited information that you mostly have to take on faith.

I think the bar exam comparison is not very good.  The bar exam comes at the end of years and years of structured and systematized study and effort.

Acceptance of the Book of Mormon and the Restored Gospel is the beginning of discipleship, not the culmination of it.  The "years and years of structured and systematized study and effort" come later.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

As noted above you have some hits.  All these have been argued as to their value from both sides don't you think?

I think the critics have, broadly speaking, done very poorly in formulating a coherent alternative theory for the origins of the Book of Mormon.  I made the following comments about this way back in 2016 (to some guy named "Teancum"  ) :

Quote

Quote

Yes I did read Dan's talk and did not find it compelling, nor do I your post above.  And yes it is upon those who claim the Book is what is claims to be as well as how it came to be to provide more than a simple low level bar of plausibility so people can simply ask God. 

Reasonable minds can disagree about that, I suppose.  I think the Church's religious truth claims are plausible.

Quote

Angels giving plates of Gold to one person and that person using stones and or a thing called the Urim and Thummim to translate the book from some unknown language are fantastical claims and not events that are common nor really able to be demonstrated with much evidence. 

True enough.  There are facets of the Church's explanation as to the origins of The Book of Mormon that are essentially matters of faith.

But then we have the testimonial evidence of the Three Witnesses.  And the Eight.  And the character of those men.  And their behavior subsequent to being estranged from Joseph Smith (and hence would be very motivated to disavow the "fantastical claims" you mention, yet they did not).  And then there are the textual evidences.  Lots of them.  And the complexity of the text.  And the internal chronological and geographic consistency.  And the short time frame in which the text was produced.

The ironic thing, really, is that as contemptuous as you are about the quantum of evidence in favor of the LDS Church's position on the origins of The Book of Mormon (you suggest that it is not supported by even "a simple low level bar of plausibility"), the alternative theories proposed by the critics are apparently even less plausible, so much so that folks like Cinepro (and, I suspect, you) will not commit to any of them or present theories of your making.  At least the Mormons are taking the field.  At least they are engaging in assessment of the evidence and defending their position based on it.  Folks like you, on the other hand, are throwing their hands up in the air and insisting that the origins of the text are . . . well, you have no explanation, and instead buy into the "reasoning," such as it is, exemplified by this statement from Dale Morgan: 

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.

Not a lot of reasoning in that.  Not much of an assessment of the evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 14, 2022 by smac97

[Stargazer]

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well having grown up in the church and being active LDS for all but the past 10 years or so sure I understand the LDS doctrinal issues I  would guess as well as anyone else here.  I am open to direction from God if there is one. As I have  noted I do pray as if there is one. Not every day but often.  And search.

Nice to hear! And I kind of thought you did.

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What is the tabula rasa?

Ah, sorry! Latin phrase, means "blank slate." I thought everyone knew that... 

From Wiki:

"Tabula rasa(/ˈtæbjələ ˈrɑːsə, -zə, ˈreɪ-/; "blank slate") is the theory that individuals are born without built-in mental content, and therefore all knowledge comes from experience or perception. Epistemological proponents of tabula rasa disagree with the doctrine of innatism, which holds that the mind is born already in possession of certain knowledge. Proponents of the tabula rasa theory also favour the "nurture" side of the nature versus nurture debate when it comes to aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behaviour, knowledge, and sapience."

Are you familiar with the Isaac Asimov-based film "I, Robot" starring Will Smith? In one scene Dr. Calvin and Will Smith's character view an array of newly-completed robots who have only been programmed with the Three-Laws Operating System and aren't yet ready for distribution to customers. Tabula rasa in this case was the robot's state before the OS was installed. Innatism is their state after the OS installation.

These robots have little or no will of their own. They are in the state called "Chinese Room" by AI researchers, whereby they only respond to stimulus. It's a fun scene:

 

[Snodgrassian]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Unfortunately it would not show how to test the authenticity of its wisdom.  Historicism is not truth nor a truth bearer of its wisdom

If you keep looking that way, you will totally miss the point

Moroni 10 urges you to test it differently.

But Moroni's promise is not a reliable way to discern truth. I have experienced for both positive and negative. I have had adults and children cry to me that took his promise to heart and felt nothing, and they wanted to feel it. 

Having ancient gold plates with some form of an ancient language would not be enough for many people to believe the gospel. We have ancient copies of the Bible, but they are not all considered true events/stories. 

My personal view is, if the Gospel as taught by the Church helps you live an enjoyable life, more power to you. It worked for me for a long time, it just doesn't work 100% for me now. I think there are great passages in the Book of Mormon, but if I want to feel something, give me the Brothers Karamazov (in my current state). I have read the Book of Mormon countless times, and enjoyed it immensely. It is a book that is meaningful to many people, and that says something. But to me, it doesn't say it is true or ancient.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:

But Moroni's promise is not a reliable way to discern truth. I have experienced for both positive and negative. I have had adults and children cry to me that took his promise to heart and felt nothing, and they wanted to feel it. 

And what is your theory of truth to back up that assertion?

What objective evidence do you have that Murder is wrong?

How do you know what brings meaning to your life?  By "objective evidence" that " I know in my heart that I should be a Doctor" is "True"?

Ever thought that you should build houses instead?

These things are not judged by objective evidence.

But that's ok, I am pretty much not able to carry on a long converation anyway- have too many projects in the fire.  Burning up while I am arguing here!!

Best wishes!

Suggestion- study out "death of positivism" for a new understanding of "truth" and how it is achieved.  check out also "postmodern truth"

 Yes it is difficult, sometimes we need to follow our own path for a while.

My suggestion is do whatever your prayers tell you is right.  I can't help you find YOUR purpose in life- but scientific reasoning never even THINKS of the PURPOSE of anything unless it is a scientific proceedure.

That's barking up the wrong tree.

 

Edited September 15, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

And what is your theory of truth to back up that assertion?

What objective evidence do you have that Murder is wrong?

How do you know what brings meaning to your life?  By "objective evidence" that " I know in my heart that I should be a Doctor" is "True"?

Ever thought that you should build houses instead?

These things are not judged by objective evidence.

But that's ok, I am pretty much not able to carry on a long converation anyway- have too many projects in the fire.  Burning up while I am arguing here!!

Best wishes!

Suggestion- study out "death of positivism" for a new understanding of "truth" and how it is achieved.  check out also "postmodern truth"

 

Yes, but do you agree the black and white thinking is wrong too? You of all people I think would agree. Maybe or maybe not? And don't answer if you're too busy!

http://indiemormon.com/quotes/all-or-nothing/

These quotes show the very black and white thinking of some of the leaders of the LDS church. In their way of thinking, the church is either all true or all wrong. This can lead people to abandon the church when they learn the church’s history doesn’t match exactly to what they’ve been taught. The leaders need to move away from this kind of thinking if they want to keep people from leaving in droves, because it doesn’t take much research to find the correlated church history we’re taught at church isn’t accurate.

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”
—President J. Reuben Clark

“He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground.”
—Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, Pages 188-189

“Our whole strength rests on the validity of that [first] vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley

“Each of us has to face the matter — either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley

“Well, it’s either true or false. If it’s false, we’re engaged in a great fraud. If it’s true, it’s the most important thing in the world. Now, that’s the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that’s exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [Sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That’s our claim. That’s where we stand, and that’s where we fall, if we fall. But we don’t. We just stand secure in that faith.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley

“Let me quote a very powerful comment from President Ezra Taft Benson, who said, “The Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church…”

“…It sounds like a “sudden death” proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward.

“Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who, after seeing the Father and the Son, later beheld the angel Moroni, repeatedly heard counsel from his lips, eventually receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which he then translated according to the gift and power of God—or else he did not. And if he did not, in the spirit of President Benson’s comment, he is not entitled to retain even the reputation of New England folk hero or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, and he is not entitled to be considered a great teacher or a quintessential American prophet or the creator of great wisdom literature. If he lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he is certainly none of those.

“I am suggesting that we make exactly that same kind of do-or-die, bold assertion about the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon. We have to. Reason and rightness require it. Accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and the book as the miraculously revealed and revered word of the Lord it is or else consign both man and book to Hades for the devastating deception of it all, but let’s not have any bizarre middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy’s imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to take—morally, literarily, historically, or theologically.”
—Jeffrey R. Holland, “True or False,” Liahona, June 1996

 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

But to me, it doesn't say it is true or ancient.  

It isn't as if the Bros are true or ancient either,  and still you found the book helpful.

Best wishes

Edited September 15, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, but do you agree the black and white thinking is wrong too? You of all people I think would agree. Maybe or maybe not? And don't answer if you're too busy!

http://indiemormon.com/quotes/all-or-nothing/

These quotes show the very black and white thinking of some of the leaders of the LDS church. In their way of thinking, the church is either all true or all wrong. This can lead people to abandon the church when they learn the church’s history doesn’t match exactly to what they’ve been taught. The leaders need to move away from this kind of thinking if they want to keep people from leaving in droves, because it doesn’t take much research to find the correlated church history we’re taught at church isn’t accurate.

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”
—President J. Reuben Clark

“He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground.”
—Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, Pages 188-189

“Our whole strength rests on the validity of that [first] vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley

“Each of us has to face the matter — either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley

“Well, it’s either true or false. If it’s false, we’re engaged in a great fraud. If it’s true, it’s the most important thing in the world. Now, that’s the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that’s exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [Sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That’s our claim. That’s where we stand, and that’s where we fall, if we fall. But we don’t. We just stand secure in that faith.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley

“Let me quote a very powerful comment from President Ezra Taft Benson, who said, “The Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church…”

“…It sounds like a “sudden death” proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward.

“Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who, after seeing the Father and the Son, later beheld the angel Moroni, repeatedly heard counsel from his lips, eventually receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which he then translated according to the gift and power of God—or else he did not. And if he did not, in the spirit of President Benson’s comment, he is not entitled to retain even the reputation of New England folk hero or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, and he is not entitled to be considered a great teacher or a quintessential American prophet or the creator of great wisdom literature. If he lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he is certainly none of those.

“I am suggesting that we make exactly that same kind of do-or-die, bold assertion about the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon. We have to. Reason and rightness require it. Accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and the book as the miraculously revealed and revered word of the Lord it is or else consign both man and book to Hades for the devastating deception of it all, but let’s not have any bizarre middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy’s imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to take—morally, literarily, historically, or theologically.”
—Jeffrey R. Holland, “True or False,” Liahona, June 1996

 

You are my buddy. 

Pronounced "spatial" in Utah.

More later. 

 

[mfbukowski]

@Tacenda

I have no idea what happened on that previous post, I simply meant we are buddies, I like our discussions. I think I meant "special buddy" but thought that sounded weird and was editing it, somebody rang the doorbell and I never finished the edit.  But I will respond 

The bottom line is that "this or that" is a figure of speech which is emphatic and meaningless as well.  "IT'S either A or not A" is a tautology that cannot be false, so rhetorically it sounds good but really says nothing.

Either the sun will rise or it will not. But I believe it will

1-It's not black and white thinking

2- If it is, so what? It's a strong expression of faith, but logically meaningless. What is wrong with black and white thinking, especially when discussing black and white?

They use human expressions or they don't

Is a statement that cannot be false

They just take the expression as a strong statement their beliefs imo, and then carry the discussion on with further "evidence" keeping in mind that testimony about faith IS always true.

"I believe the moon is made of green cheese; either that is true or false" , is itself a true statement and will always be. 

I just spoke here Eternal Truth.  A=A=Eternal truth!!!

It's just meaningless, it gives no information

 

Edited September 15, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

@Tacenda

I have no idea what happened on that previous post, I simply meant we are buddies, I like our discussions. I think I meant "special buddy" but thought that sounded weird and was editing it, somebody rang the doorbell and I never finished the edit.  But I will respond 

Oh, I totally read that I was your little buddy. No problem, like I said you're really busy and no hurry responding bud!

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

In terms of evaluating spiritual/religious claims, I think it's a fine way to proceed.

Do you think "shoehorn{ing} evidence to fit our assumptions" is an issue that goes both ways?  That skeptics do this as well, just with a different set of assumptions/presumptions.

Skeptics? No some critics, undoubtably. The existence of witnesses is evidence that the plates existed. It is evidence for Joseph's claims. Those that deny this are likely not speaking carefully (meaning that they merely are trying to say "insufficient" evidence) but if not they would be guilty of the same.

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

In the law, there are "presumptions" in place.  In a criminal case, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

In a civil lawsuit, the plaintiff almost always presumptively carries the "burden of proof" to establish the probability of his legal claims.  There are some few exceptions to this, though.  Many years ago I was involved in a workers compensation case in which my client, the defendant employer, had not carried workers comp insurance.  The law in Utah is situated to essentially punish employers for not carrying this insurance by shifting the burden of proof.  Thus all the plaintiff, a former employee who had claimed to have been injured on the job, had to do was present the claim to the court (no witnesses.  no photos, nada), and my client had to prove that the injury had not happened.  

In Bayesian reasoning we all have our prior beliefs. These are called credences. There is no right or wrong credence (other than zero and 100%). We then attempt to update our credences based on the evidence we find in the world. In a criminal case, jurors are instructed that they should give a high credence to the defendant being innocent. Based on the evidence presented at trial, jurors update their credences. If at the end of a trial a juror does not feel that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they are to acquit. That is all well and good. If a juror told a prosecutor that his paradigm demanded as a given that the defendant was innocent. And that all evidence would be interpreted in light of that given fact, that's a problem. There is no way that juror would be allowed to serve.

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

Anyway, my point is that we all bring our presumptions and assumptions with us.  None of us is objective.  We all look at life through a preferred lens.  As to the truth claims of the Church, I acknowledge that viewing them through a "lens" of skepticism/cynicism, using presumptions devoid of faith or hope, will almost certainly yield a negative conclusion.  Conversely, a "lense" borne of faith and hope can yield quite different results.

Apparently the Plan of Salvation is predicated on the individual being willing to exercise some measure of faith and hope.  Some willingness/desire to believe.  Alma 32's "seed of faith" discussion is apt:

Having a desire to believe something is exactly opposite the mindset you need if you want to find truth. As a Latter-day Saint, I was taught to pray and then instructed (in not so many words) to interpret whatever happened next as evidence that God answered my prayer. I was specifically taught that we don't know how or when he will answer. Sometimes we have to walk on faith first. But he will answer. But the thing is, if we look hard enough, eventually we can find something to turn into an answer to prayer. Indeed even a feeling to go the wrong way is an answer from God (Holland's wrong roads). If this brings people peace and joy, that's fine, but it doesn't strike me as a reliable way to find out (to the best of our limited ability to discern anyting) truth. 

Respectfully (hopefully that came across this time),

John

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

 

In terms of evaluating spiritual/religious claims, I think it's a fine way to proceed.

Do you think "shoehorn{ing} evidence to fit our assumptions" is an issue that goes both ways?  That skeptics do this as well, just with a different set of assumptions/presumptions.

 

Skeptics? No some critics, undoubtably. The existence of witnesses is evidence that the plates existed. It is evidence for Joseph's claims. Those that deny this are likely not speaking carefully (meaning that they merely are trying to say "insufficient" evidence) but if not they would be guilty of the same.

I think that's a very fair point.  We sometimes don't realize that we are speaking in qualified/limited terms.  "No evidence" may be meant as "Not sufficiently credible/probative evidence to alter my perspective."  "Discrimination" may be meant as "invidious, unlawful, and inappropriate discrimination."

48 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

In Bayesian reasoning we all have our prior beliefs. These are called credences. There is no right or wrong credence (other than zero and 100%). We then attempt to update our credences based on the evidence we find in the world. In a criminal case, jurors are instructed that they should give a high credence to the defendant being innocent. Based on the evidence presented at trial, jurors update their credences. If at the end of a trial a juror does not feel that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they are to acquit. That is all well and good. If a juror told a prosecutor that his paradigm demanded as a given that the defendant was innocent. And that all evidence would be interpreted in light of that given fact, that's a problem. There is no way that juror would be allowed to serve.

I'm not sure what you mean by "his paradigm demanded as a given that the defendant was innocent."  Are you saying unequivocally, necessarily, incontrovertibly "innocent," or just "presumptively" innocent?  If the former, I get your point.  If the latter, I don't.

48 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

 

Anyway, my point is that we all bring our presumptions and assumptions with us.  None of us is objective.  We all look at life through a preferred lens.  As to the truth claims of the Church, I acknowledge that viewing them through a "lens" of skepticism/cynicism, using presumptions devoid of faith or hope, will almost certainly yield a negative conclusion.  Conversely, a "lense" borne of faith and hope can yield quite different results.

Apparently the Plan of Salvation is predicated on the individual being willing to exercise some measure of faith and hope.  Some willingness/desire to believe.  Alma 32's "seed of faith" discussion is apt:

 

Having a desire to believe something is exactly opposite the mindset you need if you want to find truth.

I don't think so.  Society largely functions on the benefit of the doubt, an unmerited and rebuttable presumption "to believe something good about someone, rather than something bad, when you have the possibility of doing either."  We can harbor this sentiment without descending into credulity.  Plenty of maxims about this:

• "Trust in God and keep your powder dry."  (Oliver Cromwell)
• "Trust, but verify."  (Ronald Reagan)
•  “Like any good optimist, I don’t expect the worst to happen. Only, like any optimist worth his salt, I like to go and look as soon as possible afterward just in case it did.”  (William Faulkner)
• "You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be."  (James Stockdale)
• "I have always had extraordinarily good relations with very conservative colleagues.  And that's not because I agree with any of them or fudge on my positions, but people feel I listen to them and give them the benefit of the doubt.  I assume the best of people."  (Barack Obama) 

48 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

As a Latter-day Saint, I was taught to pray and then instructed (in not so many words) to interpret whatever happened next as evidence that God answered my prayer.

Hmm.  That's not what I was taught.

48 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I was specifically taught that we don't know how or when he will answer.

I was taught this, and I have since found it to be largely true.

48 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sometimes we have to walk on faith first. But he will answer.

Same with this.

48 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But the thing is, if we look hard enough, eventually we can find something to turn into an answer to prayer.

I think you are referencing credulity.  I am not.  Nor, I think, was Alma.

48 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Indeed even a feeling to go the wrong way is an answer from God (Holland's wrong roads). If this brings people peace and joy, that's fine, but it doesn't strike me as a reliable way to find out (to the best of our limited ability to discern anyting) truth. 

There does seem to be a chicken-or-the-egg issue here.  I think God wants us to seek truth, including from Him.  The process for such seeking involves real effort, honesty, sincerity, and . . . a willingness or desire to believe.  

Also, it's a process.  "That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day."  (D&C 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 15, 2022 by smac97

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

@Tacenda

I have no idea what happened on that previous post, I simply meant we are buddies, I like our discussions. I think I meant "special buddy" but thought that sounded weird and was editing it, somebody rang the doorbell and I never finished the edit.  But I will respond 

The bottom line is that "this or that" is a figure of speech which is emphatic and meaningless as well.  "IT'S either A or not A" is a tautology that cannot be false, so rhetorically it sounds good but really says nothing.

Either the sun will rise or it will not. But I believe it will

1-It's not black and white thinking

2- If it is, so what? It's a strong expression of faith, but logically meaningless. What is wrong with black and white thinking, especially when discussing black and white?

They use human expressions or they don't

Is a statement that cannot be false

They just take the expression as a strong statement their beliefs imo, and then carry the discussion on with further "evidence" keeping in mind that testimony about faith IS always true.

"I believe the moon is made of green cheese; either that is true or false" , is itself a true statement and will always be. 

I just spoke here Eternal Truth.  A=A=Eternal truth!!!

It's just meaningless, it gives no information

 

Well, I think I just got kicked off the fence and not allowed to visit the ranch (aka God's planet). No soup for me. That's pretty much the writing on the wall. Fencesitters are bad.

[teddyaware]

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, I think I just got kicked off the fence and not allowed to visit the ranch (aka God's planet). No soup for me. That's pretty much the writing on the wall. Fencesitters are bad.

 

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, I think I just got kicked off the fence and not allowed to visit the ranch (aka God's planet). No soup for me. That's pretty much the writing on the wall. Fencesitters are bad.

Everyone’s bad unless and they continue to repent, on an ongoing basis, throughout the rest of their lives. But apropos to this topic, I will say that the day will come when your spiritual eyes will be opened, and when that day comes you will be absolutely flabbergasted when you realize how perfectly obvious it is that the Book of Mormon is true, and then you will wonder in astonishment as to how you could have doubted something that’s so obviously true.

Edited September 15, 2022 by teddyaware

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think that's a very fair point.  We sometimes don't realize that we are speaking in qualified/limited terms.  "No evidence" may be meant as "Not sufficiently credible/probative evidence to alter my perspective."  "Discrimination" may be meant as "invidious, unlawful, and inappropriate discrimination."

I'm not sure what you mean by "his paradigm demanded as a given that the defendant was innocent."  Are you saying unequivocally, necessarily, incontrovertibly "innocent," or just "presumptively" innocent?  If the former, I get your point.  If the latter, I don't.

Thanks for to your response.  Just a couple of quick thoughts as that’s all I have time for. I’m using “given” in the dictionary sense: noun “a known or established fact”. 

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  Society largely functions on the benefit of the doubt, an unmerited and rebuttable presumption "to believe something good about someone, rather than something bad, when you have the possibility of doing either."  We can harbor this sentiment without descending into credulity.  Plenty of maxims about this:

• "Trust in God and keep your powder dry."  (Oliver Cromwell)
• "Trust, but verify."  (Ronald Reagan)
•  “Like any good optimist, I don’t expect the worst to happen. Only, like any optimist worth his salt, I like to go and look as soon as possible afterward just in case it did.”  (William Faulkner)
• "You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be."  (James Stockdale)
• "I have always had extraordinarily good relations with very conservative colleagues.  And that's not because I agree with any of them or fudge on my positions, but people feel I listen to them and give them the benefit of the doubt.  I assume the best of people."  (Barack Obama) 

It seems to me you are conflating two things. An assumption of good faith is a good place to start with most people in a society like ours.  Giving people the benefit of the doubt, assume they aren’t lying, assume they are genuine. I agree with all of this. None of this transcends into a “desire to believe”. A judge can listen to conflicting stories, assume good faith, and still adjudicate decisions all without a “desire to believe”. In fact if she had a “desire to believe” one side over the other (because one side was a friend of a friend say), we’d say she is not fit to adjudicate fairly. “Desire to belief” is not the same as “thoughtfully consider” or “assume good faith”. 

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  That's not what I was taught.

I was taught this, and I have since found it to be largely true.

Same with this.

I think you are referencing credulity.  I am not.  Nor, I think, was Alma.

There does seem to be a chicken-or-the-egg issue here.  I think God wants us to seek truth, including from Him.  The process for such seeking involves real effort, honesty, sincerity, and . . . a willingness or desire to believe.  

Also, it's a process.  "That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day."  (D&C 

Thanks,-Sma

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Well, I think I just got kicked off the fence and not allowed to visit the ranch (aka God's planet). No soup for me. That's pretty much the writing on the wall. Fencesitters are bad.

I missed something.

What happened? Was it something I said?

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It seems to me you are conflating two things. An assumption of good faith is a good place to start with most people in a society like ours.  Giving people the benefit of the doubt, assume they aren’t lying, assume they are genuine. I agree with all of this. None of this transcends into a “desire to believe”. A judge can listen to conflicting stories, assume good faith, and still adjudicate decisions all without a “desire to believe”. In fact if she had a “desire to believe” one side over the other (because one side was a friend of a friend say), we’d say she is not fit to adjudicate fairly. “Desire to belief” is not the same as “thoughtfully consider” or “assume good faith”. 

I see inclinations, biases, or dispositions toward belief as a double-edged sword. In many cases, a high level of interest in a certain claim or proposition is what drives people to thoroughly investigate it. I suspect that most major discoveries or breakthroughs in various fields haven't been made by dispassionate, disinterested scientists idly reviewing data in a lab. The people who are on the cutting edge of research tend to be those who care deeply about the results for various reasons. They are generally (although not always) hoping for or strongly expecting certain outcomes. On the other hand, strong desires for certain outcomes can, as we all know, lead to biases that blind us. Examples of this are manifold. 

While it is true that intently seeking for evidence of something that we care deeply about can lead us to find evidence even when it doesn't exist (or to inflate or overestimate the significance of the evidence we have found), it is almost certain that those who DON'T intently seek for evidence are likely NOT to find it, even if it DOES exist. 

Thus, I doesn't at all seem clear to what extent strong hopes or desires will negatively or positively influence a given person's ability to exhaustively gather and then correctly interpret all the relevant data pertaining to a certain topic. It is a very individual matter. There is a wide range of ability when it comes to spotting our own biases and not allowing them to negatively impact our judgment. I therefore don't think it is helpful to view strong desires as a clear detriment to truth-seeking. I think a better solution is simply to pursue a range of critical thinking skills that help guard against biases and self-deception.

Strong desires/interest + strong critical thinking skills = the deepest and most thorough analysis. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I see inclinations, biases, or dispositions toward belief as a double-edged sword. In many cases, a high level of interest in a certain claim or proposition is what drives people to thoroughly investigate it. I suspect that most major discoveries or breakthroughs in various fields haven't been made by dispassionate, disinterested scientists idly reviewing data in a lab. The people who are on the cutting edge of research tend to be those who care deeply about the results for various reasons. They are generally (although not always) hoping for or strongly expecting certain outcomes. On the other hand, strong desires for certain outcomes can, as we all know, lead to biases that blind us. Examples of this are manifold. 
 

Alma says we have to start with at least a “desire to believe”. So while I agree with much of what you said, With respect, you don’t have this quite right. All the great scientists were driven by passion, sure, and a desire to understand the world as it is. Galileo didn’t gaze into the night sky out of a desire to believe one way or another. He gazed into the night sky to discover what was out there. Having a desire to believe a certain way can only be a hinderance in finding truth. 

11 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

 

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Alma says we have to start with at least a “desire to believe”. So while I agree with much of what you said, With respect, you don’t have this quite right. All the great scientists were driven by passion, sure, and a desire to understand the world as it is. Galileo didn’t gaze into the night sky out of a desire to believe one way or another. He gazed into the night sky to discover what was out there. Having a desire to believe a certain way can only be a hinderance in finding truth

I think it is possible to have a deep interest in a topic without caring deeply about the outcome. Lots of things are like that. But I still think it is premature to see strong desire for particular outcomes as purely negative. 

To take a current event, let's suppose for the sake of argument that there were two individuals primarily responsible for investigating the Duke vs. BYU volleyball game in which Rachel Richardson claimed to have been harassed and intimidated due to her race. Imagine if one of the investigators strongly believed Richardson's account and cared deeply about social justice, while the other investigator really couldn't care less either way. And let's say that they were each tasked to go through all of the recorded video and audio separately. And let's say that the investigator with the strong belief in Richardson's innocence was far more scrupulous with the data and was therefore able to detect racial slurs being leveled at Richardson, while the more "objective" investigator couldn't find anything. In such a situation, would the strong bias towards belief in Richardson and toward furthering the cause of racial justice have been a detriment or an advantage when it comes to evaluating the evidence?

As I see it, in such a scenario, the stronger desire for a particular outcome could clearly be seen as advantageous. Yes, such a bias could possibly lead that investigator to overvalue weak evidence. Maybe before finding the solid evidence, the investigator was willing to promote some pretty dubious audio clips as racial slurs. But then, what if that same passion for discovering the hoped-for evidence is what ultimately led to positively identifying the alleged act of racism? I'm not saying passions and desires are always unequivocally advantageous. But they clearly aren't always negative either.

I suspect that an omniscient survey of all major discoveries would demonstrate that strong desires for particular outcomes has played a role in many of them (especially the desire to prove one's own theory correct, particularly after it has faced public opposition). Those who don't think that hubris has played a large, motivating role in academic research in a variety of fields are missing a big part of the picture. Scientist aren't always just out to discover what's in the stars. In many cases, they are also out to prove themselves right, and that passion often motivates a remarkable amount of effort towards that end, as biased as it might be. 

Edited September 15, 2022 by Ryan Dahle

[Tacenda]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And what is your theory of truth to back up that assertion?

What objective evidence do you have that Murder is wrong?

How do you know what brings meaning to your life?  By "objective evidence" that " I know in my heart that I should be a Doctor" is "True"?

Ever thought that you should build houses instead?

These things are not judged by objective evidence.

But that's ok, I am pretty much not able to carry on a long converation anyway- have too many projects in the fire.  Burning up while I am arguing here!!

Best wishes!

Suggestion- study out "death of positivism" for a new understanding of "truth" and how it is achieved.  check out also "postmodern truth"

 Yes it is difficult, sometimes we need to follow our own path for a while.

My suggestion is do whatever your prayers tell you is right.  I can't help you find YOUR purpose in life- but scientific reasoning never even THINKS of the PURPOSE of anything unless it is a scientific proceedure.

That's barking up the wrong tree.

 

My moral compass, that God put in humans, tells me the truth.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

My moral compass, that God put in humans, tells me the truth.

Absolutely, totally agree

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 9/15/2022 at 3:35 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

I think it is possible to have a deep interest in a topic without caring deeply about the outcome. Lots of things are like that. But I still think it is premature to see strong desire for particular outcomes as purely negative. 
 

This is true. If I implied otherwise, I should have been more considered in my approach.

When I said, “Having a desire to believe a certain way can only be a hinderance in finding truth“ I meant just that. If your highest value is discovering how the world works and what is “true”, then a “desire to believe” can only hinder that quest. With that said “find truth” isn’t the only worthy goal. “Ending racial injustice” might also be someone’s highest goal. Defense attorneys highest goal should be to advocate vociferously for their clients regardless of the truth of their guilt. 
 

But judges, jurors? Scientists? No. They are tasked with finding truth. I, for one, would never want to stand trial before someone who desired to believe that I was guilty. 

On 9/15/2022 at 3:35 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

 

To take a current event, let's suppose for the sake of argument that there were two individuals primarily responsible for investigating the Duke vs. BYU volleyball game in which Rachel Richardson claimed to have been harassed and intimidated due to her race. Imagine if one of the investigators strongly believed Richardson's account and cared deeply about social justice, while the other investigator really couldn't care less either way. And let's say that they were each tasked to go through all of the recorded video and audio separately. And let's say that the investigator with the strong belief in Richardson's innocence was far more scrupulous with the data and was therefore able to detect racial slurs being leveled at Richardson, while the more "objective" investigator couldn't find anything. In such a situation, would the strong bias towards belief in Richardson and toward furthering the cause of racial justice have been a detriment or an advantage when it comes to evaluating the evidence?

Might they find evidence that could have been missed? Sure.  Might they also find evidence that doesn’t exist? Absolutely. What about the harm to the fan wrongfully accused, the institution wrongfully derided, the players who missed the game, because of a “desire to believe”? 

 

On 9/15/2022 at 3:35 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

As I see it, in such a scenario, the stronger desire for a particular outcome could clearly be seen as advantageous. Yes, such a bias could possibly lead that investigator to overvalue weak evidence. Maybe before finding the solid evidence, the investigator was willing to promote some pretty dubious audio clips as racial slurs. But then, what if that same passion for discovering the hoped-for evidence is what ultimately led to positively identifying the alleged act of racism? I'm not saying passions and desires are always unequivocally advantageous. But they clearly aren't always negative either.

I suspect that an omniscient survey of all major discoveries would demonstrate that strong desires for particular outcomes has played a role in many of them (especially the desire to prove one's own theory correct, particularly after it has faced public opposition). Those who don't think that hubris has played a large, motivating role in academic research in a variety of fields are missing a big part of the picture. Scientist aren't always just out to discover what's in the stars. In many cases, they are also out to prove themselves right, and that passion often motivates a remarkable amount of effort towards that end, as biased as it might be. 

Would your omniscient survey include journals blocking good science because it went against their beliefs? Would it include things like the witch trials where a desire to believe ruined lives? 
 

I’m all for the marketplace of ideas. I’m all for passionate people of all beliefs zealously advocating for causes they believe in. But when I want to find truth? No way. 
 

And if someone tells me that the only way to actually be able to see the evidence is to first “desire” to see it. Forget about it. 

Edited September 17, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[mfbukowski]

On 9/15/2022 at 2:35 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

I think it is possible to have a deep interest in a topic without caring deeply about the outcome. Lots of things are like that. But I still think it is premature to see strong desire for particular outcomes as purely negative. 

To take a current event, let's suppose for the sake of argument that there were two individuals primarily responsible for investigating the Duke vs. BYU volleyball game in which Rachel Richardson claimed to have been harassed and intimidated due to her race. Imagine if one of the investigators strongly believed Richardson's account and cared deeply about social justice, while the other investigator really couldn't care less either way. And let's say that they were each tasked to go through all of the recorded video and audio separately. And let's say that the investigator with the strong belief in Richardson's innocence was far more scrupulous with the data and was therefore able to detect racial slurs being leveled at Richardson, while the more "objective" investigator couldn't find anything. In such a situation, would the strong bias towards belief in Richardson and toward furthering the cause of racial justice have been a detriment or an advantage when it comes to evaluating the evidence?

As I see it, in such a scenario, the stronger desire for a particular outcome could clearly be seen as advantageous. Yes, such a bias could possibly lead that investigator to overvalue weak evidence. Maybe before finding the solid evidence, the investigator was willing to promote some pretty dubious audio clips as racial slurs. But then, what if that same passion for discovering the hoped-for evidence is what ultimately led to positively identifying the alleged act of racism? I'm not saying passions and desires are always unequivocally advantageous. But they clearly aren't always negative either.

I suspect that an omniscient survey of all major discoveries would demonstrate that strong desires for particular outcomes has played a role in many of them (especially the desire to prove one's own theory correct, particularly after it has faced public opposition). Those who don't think that hubris has played a large, motivating role in academic research in a variety of fields are missing a big part of the picture. Scientist aren't always just out to discover what's in the stars. In many cases, they are also out to prove themselves right, and that passion often motivates a remarkable amount of effort towards that end, as biased as it might be. 

It seems to me that the BOM can be seen similarly to the BOA in a catalyst theory view considering the fact that Joseph did not even USE the plates directly, now that we know more about the hat and seerstone?

I think it makes the case for Joseph being a prophet even stronger than ever!  The content alone PROVES him to be a genuine prophet in both volumes 

Why do we even concern ourselves with the historicity of plates not used and apparently no longer in existence?  

I understand some need the more Fundamentalist view, but I think the future is bright for a more reasonable view that will remove all need this old style apologetics.

It was commonplace for seers all over the world to use objects like seer stones etc as "crutches" to receive their visions.

I wonder sometimes what may have been used by Old Testament prophets.

[Nevo]

On 9/8/2022 at 11:36 PM, Rivers said:

This is a question for the non-believers.  Do you think Joseph Smith had tangible metal plates of some kind or something that looked like metal plates?  Or do you think the plates were completely imaginary?  

I don't identify as a "non-believer," but I suppose I am a non-believer in Book of Mormon historicity, so I'll venture a response.

Yes, I think Joseph Smith had metal plates. Or something like it. Do I think the plates were an ancient Nephite record? No. Why not? Because the Book of Mormon is clearly a modern work. It is dependent on the KJV, published in 1611. It presupposes Joseph Smith's milieu: Freemasonry, Hebraic Indian theories, millenarianism, republicanism, revivalism, sectarian competition, seer stones, "slippery treasures," etc. The structure of the book is dependent on an event that took place in 1828 (the loss of the 116 pages). And it's of a piece with Joseph Smith's later scriptural productions. 

That's my short answer.

[Ryan Dahle]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If your highest value is discovering how the world works and what is “true”, then a “desire to believe” can only hinder that quest.

One thing that should be clarified is that we are talking here about generalized human tendencies, and that what we believe about such tendencies is based on highly subjective assessments of our own and others' psychological states. Science can't measure the degree of desire that someone has for certain outcomes, nor the precise extent that such desires directly and necessarily affect logical processes. Thus, I believe it is ultimately unknown to what extent people can and have overcome desire-based biases.

To me, it seems entirely possible for an individual to make highly rational and logically valid judgments about a particular matter despite her or his strong desires for a particular outcome or conclusion related to that matter. And if that is possible (even if rarely achieved), then it would be incorrect to see such desires as unavoidably hindering the pursuit of truth. It would be like saying that because many people tend to get angry when others insult them that ALL people will unavoidably become angry upon being insulted. It's probably a decent rule of thumb, but it is hardly a proven cosmological constant.  

Building on this logic, it seems important to ask ourselves what other psychological effects are commonly associated with strong desires. Well, the one that came most readily to my mind is that strong desires tend to produce strong motivation to search for the types of evidence that might validate the desire. For instance, a scholar whose ego has been bruised and who wants to prove his or her theory correct may be able to significantly increase research output towards testing the theory. And if such a scholar happens to ALSO have a strong ability to discern and check his or her own biases (due to acquired critical thinking skills) and a similarly strong desire to only believe and promote what really seems to be true, then that scholar may have an unusual ability and interest towards validating his or her theory (or disproving it, as disappointing as that might be to him or her).

In such situations, the precise negative effects of the desire would have to be weighed against the precise positive affects of the desire, as well as with competing or associated desires. If a large portion of the negative affects can be ameliorated in this calculus, and if the positive affects are inherently very strong, then you may have something approaching a net positive effect. 

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Might they find evidence that could have been missed? Sure.  Might they also find evidence that doesn’t exist? Absolutely. What about the harm to the fan wrongfully accused, the institution wrongfully derided, the players who missed the game, because of a “desire to believe”? 

What about it? I agreed out the outset that strong desires can in many cases negatively affect judgment. 

 

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Would your omniscient survey include journals blocking good science because it went against their beliefs? Would it include things like the witch trials where a desire to believe ruined lives? 

Yes. It would theoretically include all pursuits of truth in every vocation or sphere of life with a complete awareness of all individual and collective psychological tendencies and a perfect awareness of how those tendencies affected judgment in all various specific contexts. I have acknowledged from the outset that desires can, and often do, lead to biases which can lead to flawed judgments which can lead to negative effects. I just believe that critical thinking skills and a strong desire to believe in the truth can help mitigate the potentially negative effects of strong concomitant desires, and that when channeled appropriately such desires can actually help, rather than hinder, the pursuit of truth.

Obviously, I can never prove that. Nor can you prove that strong desires for certain outcomes or conclusions always hinder the pursuit of truth. But it is worth thinking about. 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Obviously, I can never prove that. Nor can you prove that strong desires for certain outcomes or conclusions always hinder the pursuit of truth. But it is worth thinking about. 

In fact, we agree, but by using Pragmatism and Radical Empiricism we CAN IN FACT discover that such desires CAN be justified as true per Alma 32, where revelation is counted as true when the consequences are "sweet" and satisfy deep teleological needs in the subject search for life's meaning for a given individual

Many Atheist philosophers actually do agree with Alma 32!