I’ve been reading the work of one Michael R. Ash, an apologist with the Mormon Times. He may have overcome ‘shaken faith syndrome’, but he’s made the mistake of embracing the more dangerous ‘True Believer syndrome’ — a troublesome but common condition that involves the epistemological gymnastics you perform when you’ve decided to defend a belief system no matter what, instead of trying to find out what’s actually true.
In his latest posting, he tries not to advance a theory of Book of Mormon geography — that would require the use of pesky facts — but instead to dismiss inaccuracies in Book of Mormon geography. The title: ‘Dismissing Book of Mormon geography inaccuracies‘.
One issue that relates in important ways to Book of Mormon geography is the human composition of the ancient Americas. The traditional LDS folk-belief asserts that the Lehites arrived to a nearly vacant New World, with the possible exception of some Jaredite survivors and the Mulekites. This tradition implies that virtually all Native Americans are descendants of exclusively Book of Mormon peoples.
Folk-belief. I remember LDS folk-belief, but it was always stuff like “If you’re fat, you’ll be resurrected as a fat person.” or “An elephant’s spirit looks like an elephant.” Can it still be folk-doctrine if it’s in the scriptures? Or taught by Joseph Smith, or someone else that you could be accused of apostasy if you ignore. Well, to Mr Ash, if a prophet said it, and then reality contradicts it, the prophet wasn’t wrong — it was ‘folk-belief’ all along.
I must say, I find his approach a bit prestidigitatious. Like cherry-picking in reverse.
Okay, so how did Mormons get the silly idea that place was vacant except for migrating Hebrews?
1. The Book of Mormon narrative never mentions anyone but the putative Hebrew inhabitants. If the place was crawling with people before any Hebrews arrived, the Mulekites and Nephites never ran across them.
2. The Book of Mormon explicitly states that the knowledge of the land was kept from other people.
And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
3. Church leaders taught it. Two examples of many:
“We beleive that the existing Indian tribes are all direct descendants of Lehi and his company, and that therefore they have sprung from men all of whom were of the house of Israel.”
– Apostle James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith, p.293“With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a descendant of one Lehi who left Jerusalem some 600 years before Christ and with his family crossed the mighty deep and landed in America. And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea.” Spencer W. Kimball, “Of Royal Blood,” Ensign, July 1971
Were they wrong? Mormon apologists like Ash would like us to think so (and in fact I agree, but for different reasons). But if Mormon leaders are considered to be authoritative on many other matters pertaining to Mormon doctrine, doesn’t it seem a bit convenient to downplay only some of the things they say just because they’ve been refuted by evidence?
Back to the article.
Early American settlers were fascinated with the fact that the New World was already inhabited by indigenous people. From where did these people originate? A number of frontiersman theorized that the Indians were remnants of the ten lost tribes of Israel. At first blush, this theory seemed to fit fairly well with the overall story of the Book of Mormon, however, the Book of Mormon peoples did not purport to come from any of the “lost tribes.“
More sleight of hand. It’s true that the Book of Mormon doesn’t say they’re from the ‘lost tribes’, but it does say that they’re Hebrews. And if that’s the case, why don’t we see (for example) Hebrew or Egyptian writing on artifacts, any evidence of sacrifices pertaining to the Mosaic law, or any evidence from genetics, linguistics, anthropology, or archaeology?
If Mr Ash wants to do something useful and advance knowledge, he can come out and give his list of the most likely candidate sites for any aspect of Book of Mormon geography, according to the best evidence we have. If he can get his work published in a peer-reviewed journal, so much the better. But I doubt he will. Apologists don’t try to advance ideas. They just try to hide from the facts, take refuge in uncertainty, sing the faithful to sleep, and scrub the record of any statements from authorities that have turned out to be wrong.
7 March 2010 at 1:25 am
Actually, Joseph Smith was continually evolving in his statements about the geography of the Book of Mormon.
So I don't have a particular problem taking the next step for him myself.
You know – there's a phenomenon with any small town where you have the young people moving out to other places. They always write in to the town newspaper to complain whenever the town wants to put up a new stoplight, or tear down a dilapidated playground, or renovate the school, or whatever else.
Whenever the town wants to do anything to improve the community, the always get a bunch of complaints from "the exiles" about how they have fond memories of that playground – how it occupies a special place in their hearts – and how it has always embodied what is at the heart of the community they knew and loved.
Well, that's nice and all.
But some people still have to live in that town. And they don't need any pointers from people who no longer have to live there.
So, thanks for the pointers, but…
I'm afraid this isn't your religion anymore.
It's my religion. And I still have to live here. And I don't need suggestions from you on how to conduct my own beliefs and view of the Book of Mormon.
We're getting the new stop light. And if you don't like it, that's just too damn bad.
7 March 2010 at 2:17 am
Hi, Seth,
You don't have to live in that town anymore. It's falling apart. You don't have to pretend that the wiring and plumbing still work, and you don't have to keep telling each other that the rat infestations used to be much worse.
You can move to a town called Reality. We have science here. You should check it out. It's on a solid foundation, and it's getting better all the time.
7 March 2010 at 2:19 am
Ah yes, and of course science and Mormonism are inherently at odds with each other.
Yawn.
7 March 2010 at 2:43 am
If Mormonism were compatible with science, Mormons would rely on the science.
What Ash's column shows me is that Mormons are content to borrow from science (or more commonly, pseudo-science) if they think it will further their ends, but they attempt to evade science when it doesn't.
7 March 2010 at 2:47 am
Oh, did your article have scientific arguments?
I must have missed that.
It seemed to me all you were doing was quoting Mormon leaders.
7 March 2010 at 3:20 am
I won't pretend to know any of the science of all of this but here's what I have to say about prophets changing their minds…
What good is a prophet if he is only right some of the time. If he is speaking ‘as a man’ he should say so, i.e. say – “this is my opinion…”. If he is speaking on behalf of God then he should say so, i.e. “God told me this…”. If we have to work out when he’s guessing and when he’s a mouthpiece then what good is he. The explanation of sometimes he is speaking as a man and sometimes from God is very weak. It allows the prophet (and other leaders) to cover all bases… but of what use is the information coming out of their mouths if we can never know how to take it?
7 March 2010 at 3:21 am
I have presented some facts showing that LDS leaders taught that Lehites and Mulekites were the first to arrive in wherever the Book of Mormon took place, and that this view is scriptural.
Latter-day Saints should therefore take this view seriously. Instead, apologists dismiss it as though it were insignificant, because this keeps their story going. Thus, they show that they are more interested in promoting their foregone conclusions than in advancing knowledge, which is a profoundly unscientific approach.
Clear?
7 March 2010 at 3:25 am
People have told me that I will never get the rid of the mormon-ness that is in me. (haha I had a typo there that said mormon-mess!) Aaaanyway, the church fucked me up for 31 years and I think I have the right to say a few things about that. Your town is not immune from outside influence.
7 March 2010 at 3:51 am
Daniel, like most ancient records, Nephi's is quite centered on his own family and his own concerns.
There is no catalogue of other people in the area because Nephi didn't feel it particular important to the narrative he was crafting.
Pretty simple.
Maureen,
I'd say getting it right even 50% of the time makes a person pretty dang useful.
CNN would kill to get an analyst with that good of a track record.
7 March 2010 at 3:54 am
Seth R: How do you know? Or is that just a convenient rationale you made up?
7 March 2010 at 4:04 am
I guess we all just have to weigh it up for ourselves. There are some pretty cool people in the mormon church who taught me some great things, like how to have a great marriage 🙂 but the things that the church got wrong are monumental and I expect 100% accuracy from my supernatural beings.
7 March 2010 at 4:06 am
Excellent.
Mormons: Getting it right 50% of the time.
I think I can dig it.
I mean, I like the stuff about forgiveness, gratitude, service, hard work, education, etc. Too bad it comes with a catch.
7 March 2010 at 4:20 am
I'm not expressing an opinion on the exact correctness percentage.
I'm just demonstrating that the idea that a source has to be 100% correct before you'll agree to take anything from it is just plain stupid.
Daniel, it's actually pretty consistent with how ancient people viewed themselves. Nephi was an Israelite and documenting the chosen status his family had with God. That he would pretty-much ignore the natives in his spiritual record really isn't that much of a stretch.
Especially when you consider that we are only getting his account from the "small plates of Nephi" and not the "large plates of Nephi."
If you remember your Gospel Doctrine classes, the small plates were primarily a spiritual record – on which Nephi recorded only those things he felt were of spiritual worth. It was on the large plates that he recorded a more detailed history – political, social, economic, all that stuff. The Book of Mormon is taken from the SMALL plates, not the large ones.
And then you have to take into account whatever Mormon did to them in his abridgment of the small plates.
No, it's not really much of a stretch, and this really is a very good candidate for the old maxim "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
As for whether this is "convenient"…
I imagine you'd attach that label to any argument a Mormon came up with that you found bothersome.
7 March 2010 at 5:00 am
I grew up believing in a perfect God. Then I realise that there's heaps of stuff going on that is just so wrong. I think I'll side with Nick Cave here – "I don't believe in an interventionist God".
7 March 2010 at 5:08 am
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Eh, well it kind of depends on the likelihood of encountering evidence given the method of searching assuming the hypothesis was true. It might be difficult to know that depending on what you're looking for, but I'd say the old maxim is incomplete as an authoritative statement. I'm sure it has been abused in the past as I am sure that people have jumped to the wrong conclusions about the absence of evidence in the past.
Mormonism seems to be a constantly evolving religion. Mormons today would not recognize Mormons from the more distant past. It started out with a set of beliefs and ended up today with an almost completely different set of beliefs. There is still a core subset that remains. Authoritative statements made by church leaders have changed a lot. This wouldn't be such a bad thing, except that these statements all came with the full weight of exclusive truth claims.
Mormon apologists from today point out the errors of the old dead leaders from yesterday, and apologists from tomorrow will point out the errors of today's leaders. Having fallible leaders like this is nothing special, and is just part of how an organization works. However, the problem comes when you mix this with exclusive truth claims, and titles of "prophet, seer, and revelator". To any Mormon, a "prophet, seer, and revelator" is by definition less fallible than someone who is not. It does no good to say "but you don't understand, we don't believe our leaders are totally infallible". The point is that Mormons believe that their leaders have an infallibility booster, which means that they're not completely infallible, but that they're really high up there.
There is now a gap between actual fallibility of a leader, and perceived fallibility of a leader from an average Mormon's perspective. This leads to a large population of Mormons hanging onto strange prejudices and beliefs that leave very slowly. You can only place so much blame at the feet of an average Mormon. This institutional groupthink has caused a lot of people a lot of grief.
This caveat of "but we believe our leaders are infallible" is convenient. It is terribly convenient, because it can be used to explain away the mistakes of yesterday. Remember, the point is not that mistakes are made, but that these mistakes are amplified by the exclusive truth claims, and by the title of "prophet, seer, and revelator."
7 March 2010 at 5:43 am
Maureen, even if you believe in an infallible God, why do you assume this must translate to his human followers?
How is it possible for any prophet to ever be perfect? Mormon theology is quite clear that all human beings are imperfect and prophets are no exception to this. Even the prophet Mormon admits to the possibility of weaknesses or errors in the Book of Mormon itself (Ether 12:23-25; Mormon 8:17). Why should Gordon B. Hinckley, or Brigham Young be any different?
The only way for God to ensure a perfect result each and every time would, logically, be for him to remove the human element of the equation entirely.
Are you suggesting that God basically practices mind-control whenever a prophet writes or speaks?
If not, then you really have no logical basis for expecting a 100% batting record from prophets.
7 March 2010 at 5:45 am
"Mormonism seems to be a constantly evolving religion. Mormons today would not recognize Mormons from the more distant past."
I think that may well be true.
Is this a bad thing?
I wouldn't think much of a religion that was incapable of applying itself to the constant change of human society and the people in it.
7 March 2010 at 5:53 am
Are you suggesting that God basically practices mind-control whenever a prophet writes or speaks?
If not, then you really have no logical basis for expecting a 100% batting record from prophets.
Do we have the right to an expectation that they'll get it wrong no more than random chance?
Because I'm saying their record is worse than random chance.
7 March 2010 at 5:55 am
Seth, I expect(ed) 100% infallibility from my supernatural beings and if they are intervening in this world (I don't think so) then I think that it would be cruel of them to make the messages unclear and hence cause much trouble for the little humans. This reminds me so much of Greek mythology.
7 March 2010 at 5:57 am
"Is this a bad thing?"
No, it's not a bad thing. Like I said, the bad thing is the exclusive truth claims and the degree of infallibility that is perceived by the average member. Let's not argue about "100%" here. Clearly, the average Mormon believes that a "prophet, seer, and revelator" is much less fallible than any other kind of leader.
7 March 2010 at 6:11 am
What? Are you saying you've got a detailed and comprehensive catalog of claims and teachings that LDS prophets have said in the past and you've concluded the majority of it was wrong?
7 March 2010 at 6:17 am
I'm saying that the claims offered by LDS leaders fall under exactly two categories:
1. Claims that turned out to be wrong.
Lamanites = Native Americans is in this category
2. Claims that may have been valid, but that anyone at the time could have known without special prophetic knowledge.
The Word of Wisdom is in this category.
I'm open to exceptions, if you'd like to propose any.
7 March 2010 at 6:19 am
I should clarify: those two categories are for testable claims.
They've also offered claims that are not testable, but that's another category.
7 March 2010 at 6:23 am
So, are you saying that the role of prophets is limited to saying stuff that we couldn't possibly find out through other means?
So, when a prophet stands up and calls on male members of the LDS Church to be respectful of their wives and stop being abusive, that "doesn't count" because it's stuff we could get from somewhere else?
You're kind of hard to please, aren't you?
And in any case, you're shifting the target.
I didn't ask you about where a prophet might get the statements they make. I asked you to explain your assertion that most of the things they DO say are wrong. Because that's what you originally said.
Or is this you qualifying your earlier statement?
7 March 2010 at 6:40 am
"So, are you saying that the role of prophets is limited to saying stuff that we couldn't possibly find out through other means?"
You misunderstood. What I believe Daniel is saying is that the role of prophets is more than just saying stuff we could find out through other means. Big difference.
What I hear you saying is that the role of a prophet is to be no more than a spiritual leader; not expected to be any less fallible than any other leader. I totally get that, but this is not what an average Mormon believes, for good reason. The title is, like I said, "prophet, seer, and revelator". That packs quite a bit more punch. If a "prophet, seer, and revelator" makes a mistake (like viciously lashing out against gays), this propagates and permeates the general Mormon population.
7 March 2010 at 7:10 am
My position is a bit more nuanced than that.
I don't consider LDS prophets to be "the same as any other spiritual leader." I'm open to the possibility that this is the case, but I haven't really reached that conclusion at this point. I give their words more weight than I do for others. This could change in future. But that's where I'm at right now.
I also disagree with a lot of the attacks that have been made on the things prophets have said. For instance, Daniel has brought up statements about the ancestry of the Lamanites.
While I do not personally believe that Lehi's company were the sole ancestors of Native Americans (North or South), I believe it a real genetic possibility that they were AMONG the ancestors for all Native Americans. Under population genetics, this is a real possibility. A limited population can spread and mingle among other populations such that it really is possible that all American Indians, for example could have "a piece of Lehi" in them. This could be true and still be virtually untraceable by modern population genetic tracking.
So, that adds a little more nuance and murkiness to the issue of whether certain statements really were in fact false.
And then you have the labeling game that goes on about what prophets have said. For instance, I believe your term was "vicious attacks on gays." I'm curious as to which statements you are referring to here that would be accurately termed "vicious." Sometimes people go overboard in their rhetoric in characterizing a position with which they disagree.
And the situation is further complicated by whether or not a statement is meant to be binding upon the thought of your average Mormon or not.
For instance, I do not consider Bruce R. McConkie's book "Mormon Doctrine" to be binding. He wrote it on his own, and in my mind he cannot invoke the authority of God with me as to whether or not I agree with its conclusions. I feel the same way about Kimball's book "The Miracle of Forgiveness."
Even sketchier when people try to cite something Gordon B. Hinckley said in a news interview.
I understand that people want to simplify their lives. They don't want to have to undertake the bother of wrestling through what right and wrong is on every issue they encounter in life. Some of them feel that having a prophet is a free hall pass to stop wrestling with these issues and delegate the thinking to him.
I disagree.
7 March 2010 at 9:58 am
Well, Seth, as a believer I would have agreed with you on much of what you're saying.
Let me ask a question on a issue I think is related.
You probably know about how Jehovah's Witnesses made a prediction about the Second Coming in 1975 or 76. (Any JW's, correct me if I'm wrong.) It didn't happen, they lost a lot of people, but the ones who remained had a lot of reworking to do. I guess eventually they managed to pick up the pieces and massage them into something credible.
Are you as sympathetic to their efforts, or do you think it was just a disingenuous attempt to keep the story going?
It seems to me that LDS and JW apologists are playing the same game. What do you think?
7 March 2010 at 6:50 pm
The most powerful weapon in the anti-Mormon arsenal is that same loveable character to whom Dorthy said, "I'll miss you most of all." There's nothing that makes one look tougher than beating the hay out of a straw man. It's fun too, because the straw man looks like we want him to look and can't fight back.
While Daniel’s post contains some outrageous and interesting remarks, I’ll simply address a few of them.
Daniel said: “Can it still be folk-doctrine if it's in the scriptures?” Yes.
“Or taught by Joseph Smith,” Yes.
“or someone else that you could be accused of apostasy if you ignore.” ?? I’ve never been accused of apostasy.
“Well, to Mr Ash, if a prophet said it, and then reality contradicts it, the prophet wasn't wrong — it was 'folk-belief' all along.”
And here we see the fun but brainless character, the Scarecrow, flop his funny head. Since Daniel claims to have been following my MT series, perhaps he’d like to address the arguments I made in issues #6 through #16 (you can start by looking here: http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/michael_r_ash/?showAll=1&startAt=21).
Until these arguments are squarely addressed, the scarecrow becomes a permanent component in the ink of Daniel’s digital pen.
Daniel said: “1. The Book of Mormon narrative never mentions anyone but the putative Hebrew inhabitants. If the place was crawling with people before any Hebrews arrived, the Mulekites and Nephites never ran across them.”
Perhaps we could excuse Daniel’s straw man comment above because I still have much to write (I’m always amazed that critics think I should answer every single charge or issue in an 800-word-or-less article). But if Daniel had been keeping up with current Mormon studies, he’d know not to make such an outrageous claim.
Daniel said: “2. The Book of Mormon explicitly states that the knowledge of the land was kept from other people. And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.”
Finally a comment of substance. Patience my young Padawan, see my comment above about not answering all questions in one article.
Daniel said: “3. Church leaders taught it.” Hello… Scarecrow (try to imagine the voice of Jerry Seinfeld saying, “Hello… Newman.”
In response to my article comment, “the Book of Mormon peoples did not purport to come from any of the ‘lost tribes.’” Daniel says: “More sleight of hand. It's true that the Book of Mormon doesn't say they're from the 'lost tribes', but it does say that they're Hebrews. And if that's the case, why don't we see (for example) Hebrew or Egyptian writing on artifacts, any evidence of sacrifices pertaining to the Mosaic law, or any evidence from genetics, linguistics, anthropology, or archaeology?”
Unfortunately, all such comments do is expose Daniel’s naiveté in the field of archaeology and what one should expect to find. This issue will be discussed in greater depth in a (near) future article(s).
7 March 2010 at 6:51 pm
Daniel concludes his rant with the following paragraph which reads in part: “If Mr Ash wants to do something useful and advance knowledge, he can come out and give his list of the most likely candidate sites for any aspect of Book of Mormon geography, according to the best evidence we have. If he can get his work published in a peer-reviewed journal, so much the better. But I doubt he will.”
The interesting thing about the anti-Mormon straw man is that he is not a solitary creature. He has many relatives. Ironically, the anti-Mormon will never explicitly tell us about these “others” but it’s easy to discern their existence upon a close reading of the text. This particular straw man—- that Book of Mormon geography hasn’t been published in “a peer-reviewed journal”– is kind of the like the Scarecrows cousin; the kid who comes over to play soccer but doesn’t want to play fair or by the rules. When this is pointed out to him, our wacky little cousin runs home and takes the ball with him.
Does Daniel understand what “peer-review” means? If so, does he know that such things above been published in “peer-reviewed” publications? Is Daniel familiar with the thousands of pages that have been written on this topic by some very bright scholars? If so, where can we find his analytical refutations of their arguments?
Daniel closes his paragraph with the blatantly false claim that “Apologists don't try to advance ideas. They just try to hide from the facts…”
Perhaps Daniel could support this balderdash with an example or two.
According to Daniel, LDS apologists “take refuge in uncertainty, sing the faithful to sleep, and scrub the record of any statements from authorities that have turned out to be wrong.”
While such an accusation waxes poetic and makes for an interesting blog sentence, it is entirely without evidentiary support.
Some of Daniel’s other comments that I found interesting are: “What Ash's column shows me is that Mormons are content to borrow from science (or more commonly, pseudo-science) if they think it will further their ends, but they attempt to evade science when it doesn't.”
While I realize that for some people, making assertions without evidence can be a kind of fun parlor-game, I would hope that those who discuss serious issues could at least provide some examples to support their silly accusations.
A couple more of Daniel’s comments:
“I'm saying that the claims offered by LDS leaders fall under exactly two categories:
1. Claims that turned out to be wrong.
Lamanites = Native Americans is in this category”
Really? This is news to me. Please show me where I’ve made this claim.
“2. Claims that may have been valid, but that anyone at the time could have known without special prophetic knowledge.
The Word of Wisdom is in this category.”
Once again, this—unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, depending how you view it)—simply exposes Daniel’s ignorance on an LDS topic. Is Daniel familiar with the literature on this issue? If so, what has he read & where can we his analytical reasons why LDS scholarship is wrong?
7 March 2010 at 7:37 pm
Daniel, I don't think the JW position is really analogous to the LDS position.
Mainly because the LDS Church has not staked its reputation so dramatically on anything that decisively didn't pan-out.
Furthermore, the JWs are playing a different game than the LDS. In my experience, they don't really go in for online debate at all, but tend to avoid such protracted debates. In this sense, the LDS are quite different.
But I don't really know much about the JW tradition. It's not been an area of interest in my studies.
7 March 2010 at 8:58 pm
Hey Mike, you just fell into the same propaganda-rant trap that you're railing against. While you were constructing elaborate scarecrow plots and emotionally charged "get off my lawn" statements (does not addressing Daniel directly make you feel superior? After all, this is his blog), you forgot to post some specific links to the literature that backs you up. As you've noticed, many of us cretinous, low-life anti-Mormons are not familiar with it. I for one am interested in reading it.
7 March 2010 at 9:50 pm
I'm late to the party, but would like to throw in. Here are my two cents: I actually think Seth has a valid point with his small town metaphor. While it's useful for us, as apostates of various religions, to be open about how we came to see things differently–what drew us out of small-town living and into more sophisticated city-life–it is hurtful on all sides of the dialog to endlessly disparage religion. When we attack religion, we put religious people on the defensive and close down avenues to openness and understanding. If we worked toward growing reason and science rather than overtly striking out at religious thought, we might find ourselves being heard as opposed to defended against with barbed wire and cement barricades.
I want to be clear that I think in general Daniel's blog is extremely respectful in its critique of religion, and doesn't devolve into out-and-out mudslinging–but it's also clear that the religious folks who come here looking to argue aren't won over by logic and reason. Such arguments usually just end up bringing out the worst in the devout–and it might be more productive for us to find a way of bringing out the best in all of us.
I think it's a positive step to be willing to "get a new stoplight" when the old one doesn't seem to be working anymore. Willingness to change is a great beginning. The little town of Mormonism has lots and lots of crumbling infrastructure, and perhaps if practitioners of the faith slowly became more open to the possibility that there is a better way to build a town (starting with babysteps–a stoplight here, a fire hydrant there), ultimately the town might consider allowing itself to be annexed by the city of reason.
It may be a naive, idealistic approach, but the war of wits doesn't seem to be getting anyone very far.
7 March 2010 at 10:19 pm
Hey Carson N.,
Since I promoted no propaganda, constructed no plots, and don't care if you're on my lawn, I'm not really sure what you're talking about.
You ask: "(does not addressing Daniel directly make you feel superior? After all, this is his blog),"
Not superior, but certainly more informed. I didn't directly address Daniel because I don't really care what he thinks (and I suspect that he doesn't care what I think or that I care that he doesn't care). I addressed his issues because I sometimes care what the audience thinks.
You also wrote: "…you forgot to post some specific links to the literature that backs you up."
I didn't forget, I didn't include them on purpose. While there are a number of things to which I could link, there are also these funny antiquated things called "books." Those who pontificate about the short-comings of Mormonism, should make sure they do their homework before making themselves look silly. Some of this literature has been available for many decades. It's easy to find if you're actually interested.
"As you've noticed, many of us cretinous, low-life anti-Mormons are not familiar with it. I for one am interested in reading it."
Which is what I find fascinating. You would think (and maybe _I'm_ actually the odd-ball), that those who are "anti" anything, would try to make "informed" comments rather than just spewing whatever comes to mind.
Here's a hint: the Maxwell Institute (previously known as FARMS) has been around since about 1979 and has published 10s of thousands of pages on many of these issues. This would be a good place to start and we can proceed from there.
8 March 2010 at 12:10 am
In other words, Mike Ash can't back it up, so he puts the onus on his debate opponent to prove him correct.
If you wish to make a point, Mr. Ash, back it up. I'm not going to do the research you should've done before posting.
8 March 2010 at 12:23 am
Everyone wants to shift the burden of proof.
Daniel himself made a lot of assertions in his original article that I don't think he ever adequately established.
So perhaps the burden of proof lies with the first person to fire a shot.
Seems reasonable to me.
8 March 2010 at 12:46 am
Goldarn, what did you want me to back up?
8 March 2010 at 12:55 am
Dude, you bragged about not including information that backs you up.
"While there are a number of things to which I could link, there are also these funny antiquated things called 'books.'"
Then you blithely refer us to FARMS, as if that would help. Either back up your assertions, or don't post them. You claim to be a scholar of sorts. You should understand this.
In the end, Mr. Ash, you are not allowed to dis the prophets of God. They are the ones who talk to God, not you. They are the ones who make authoritative statements that you dismiss by calling them "folk-doctrine." You need to learn to either follow the prophet or get out of the way.
8 March 2010 at 1:14 am
Goldarn, perhaps you didn't understand the question so I'll ask again, "What do you want me to back up?" Specifics would help. There are several things that have been discussed on this thread & I pointed out that FARMS had published tons of material on these issues. So unless you're wanting me to make a list (a long list) of all the things that I could back up (and I don't plan on gratifying your inability/unwillingness to to your homework), then give me the specific thing that you wanted when you made the accusation that I couldn't back it up.
And to answer your latest rant:
"Dude, you bragged about not including information that backs you up."
Would a link to FARMS suffice? Specifics, man, specifics.
You said:
"Then you blithely refer us to FARMS, as if that would help."
It would if you would read the many books and articles they've published.
"Either back up your assertions, or don't post them."
Either be specific, or don't post your generalities that I can't "back up" what I've claimed.
"You claim to be a scholar of sorts. You should understand this."
What I understand is that you've been unable to follow the bouncing ball. Be specific and we can work from there.
"In the end, Mr. Ash, you are not allowed to dis the prophets of God."
Not allowed to, or don't want to? Are you aware that there is a difference? Are you allowed to dis your wife, or would you find that inappropriate?
"They are the ones who talk to God, not you."
Hello Scarecrow Jr. You obviously have a lot to learn about Mormonism. Here, I'll back it up, start by reading http://www.LDS.org.
"They are the ones who make authoritative statements that you dismiss by calling them 'folk-doctrine.' You need to learn to either follow the prophet or get out of the way."
Interesting. So I've "dis[ed" the prophets by claiming that they've taught "folk-doctrine." And I'm not allowed to "dis" the prophets? What happens if I do? Do I get excommunicated, or do I get such things printed in the Church-owned Mormon Times? You're logic is overwhelming.
8 March 2010 at 1:40 am
Hi, Mike! Good to see you on the blog. Thanks for coming over and engaging. I'm not interested in attacking straw men, but I don't think I am. I'm trying to present your view accurately, but I welcome the opportunity to get clarifications from you.
I realise that your column is episodic, and you're building up a picture slowly. And that there's more to come, which I'm looking forward to. But I can make some guesses as to where you're going from the way you've begun.
I imagine that to your view, you're trying to clear away a lot of brush that's accumulated over the years, so you can make a harmonious synthesis of scripture and science. But I'm guessing the reason you've decided to take on such an endeavour is because you've already decided (through unscientific means) that the Book of Mormon is a factual historical document. Having reached your conclusion, you are now erecting a structure that will make your conclusion seem plausible. (Scholarship: ur doin it rong.)
Your approach so far has involved Keeping It Vague. You're having to exclude statements from authorities that were once considered inspired. Why do you attempt to explain away the words of prophets? Are you smarter than they are? Well, actually you are, you're much smarter — all of us are. But that's because we live a hundred years later than they did, with a hundred years of scientific knowledge behind us. But that's why trying to edit and interpret and sculpt their words (to bring them in line with current scientific understanding) isn't really honest. They're supposed to have known more than we do, not less.
I do know what a peer-reviewed publication is, having published in them, and having occasionally reviewed for them. You'll understand if I have a higher standard than the 'Journal of Book of Mormon Studies'. I'd love it if you could point me to anything that establishes anything about Nephite geography published in a secular journal. I don't care if it's geography, anthropology, linguistics, archaeology, genetics, or anything else.
I think you've got nothing of the kind. That's because your fundamental premise — that the inhabitants of Ancient America were Hebrews — is unsupported by any evidence at all. But evidence isn't your game, is it?
No rush — I know you're busy; you've got a column to write and all.
8 March 2010 at 1:42 am
I hope it's ok if I pipe up again. Straight up I have to say that I am very interested in Archaeology but I have only studied it as a part of my BA so my understanding is limited.
Whilst reading through the literature published by FARMS is very interesting I was under the impression that the wider archaeological community has not acknowledged any evidence that supports the Book of Mormon. I think that Mormon archaeologists have improved their credibility over the years by being less rigid with the things that they will consider to be 'folk-tales' as you say.
So, whilst suggesting that we take a look at FARMS, I guess we're looking for some more objective information.
I loved Serahs comment! 🙂 and Mike, I think it is great that Daniel has brought up these issues for all of us to discuss. As you yourself pointed out you can't cover everything in your opening statement but I have found that blogging is great for continuing that conversation.
8 March 2010 at 1:56 am
No need to be timid, Maureen — stand up and roar with the rest of us!
I'm not a fan of Serah's comment (sorry, mate!). I don't think it would desirable to annex Sciencetown and Religionville. I don't think Religionville has much to offer, and its people are pretty free about legislating everyone else's behaviour according to their whims. No thanks.
8 March 2010 at 2:05 am
"and its people are pretty free about legislating everyone else's behaviour according to their whims. No thanks."
Of course atheists never do this.
…snort…
8 March 2010 at 2:07 am
I should have been more specific about what I liked about Serahs comment. For myself I took on the idea that to be heard I need to 'grow reason and science', something that has been lacking so far on my own blog. Mostly I have been saying how mad I am but I'm in the early stages of ex-mormonism so a bit of ranting feels good. (and since I'm not being judged by a god anymore they seem to be bursting to be heard!)
I'll roar when I have a good point to make but I feel pretty uneducated about this particular topic. If it were polygamy however, weheheheeeellll!!
8 March 2010 at 2:07 am
As for why non-Mormon archeologists don't sound off on Mormon stuff…
Probably because they're not Mormons. Most scholars are not interested in testing Mormon claims. They have no reason to be interested.
So, I'm afraid you're stuck with either believing Mormons or their sworn enemies. You aren't going to find objective information on Mormon topics.
End of story.
8 March 2010 at 2:11 am
I don't know how to post a link here but if anyone wants to read an interesting thread by crazywomancreek about Prop8 and the problems with the mormon church being involved go to feministmormonhousewives.org and find a post called 'Rage and Sorrow'. I think that it is a good one to read if you still think that religions aren't hurting anyone.
8 March 2010 at 2:14 am
Maybe I'm ultra naive then but I met many budding archaeologists who were very interested in the Book of Mormon question. I never encountered prejudice from them. I'm a bit of an idealist but true scientists love the science and don't pander to belief systems of any kind. They want to know the facts, whatever those facts might reveal.
8 March 2010 at 2:28 am
Maureen, if they are professionals, none of them will touch a Book of Mormon debate with a ten foot pole.
The moment you reveal that you are out to prove or disprove a "Mormon" issue as an archeologist, you've instantly shot to heck any pretense of objectivity you ever had.
Think about it a second.
"I'm conducting this study to see if we can find any steel in Mesoamerica like that described in the Book of Mormon."
The guy has already revealed that he's heading to Guatemala with an ulterior motive.
No archeologist worth his salt is going to do that.
No, he'll just organize a trip to Guatemala to "find whatever we find" and leave it at that.
That's what scientists do.
8 March 2010 at 2:32 am
I'm ok with that. Then wouldn't the archaeologist that visited Guatemala be able to share info with the mormon archaeologists that have visited the same sites and discuss the implications. I don't see why they would dismiss the mormon pov if it were presented well.
8 March 2010 at 2:33 am
Seth R:
Of course atheists never do this.
What are you talking about?
8 March 2010 at 3:20 am
See the quote above the statement.
8 March 2010 at 3:29 am
Are you saying atheists have tried to legislate other people's behaviour according to atheist principles? Cause I would love to hear about that.
8 March 2010 at 3:35 am
No, I'm saying EVERYONE tries to shove their values on society.
The only difference is that when Mormons do it, it has scary "religion" wrapping paper.
But there is absolutely zero difference between what the two groups are doing.
8 March 2010 at 3:47 am
Not quite.
Example: Abortion.
Regular people try to make it possible for someone to have an abortion if they want one, while not forcing anyone else to have one if their beliefs preclude same.
Some religious people try to prevent everyone from having an abortion, whether their beliefs prohibit abortion or not.
See the difference? Try.
Where'd Mike go? I'm looking forward to all those peer-reviewed articles he was talking about. I'm trying to be patient.
8 March 2010 at 3:56 am
Goodness gracious Mike, you need me to point them out to you? Pay attention to your own writing. Here they are:
First, you talk about Daniel's claim #1 and you said, "But if Daniel had been keeping up with current Mormon studies, he’d know not to make such an outrageous claim." Cute rhetoric, but you need to back it up, smart guy.
Next, you fail to address claim #2 by saying, "Patience my young Padawan, see my comment above about not answering all questions in one article." Cute little Star Wars reference, but once again, no substance here.
Next, you tried to make a joke.
Then you dismiss Daniel's comment about artifact evidence by saying, "This issue will be discussed in greater depth in a (near) future article(s)." So far, you've provided absolutely nothing.
Then you go into an elaborate story about scarecrows. After that, you claim that "such things above been published in “peer-reviewed” publications", without actually citing any. You're clearly posting here for emotional reasons.
Next, you quote some of Daniel's more vague accusations and ask for specific examples and/or evidence, which is fair. You might want to take your own advice.
Next, referring I'm assuming to the Word of Wisdom, you state: "Is Daniel familiar with the literature on this issue?" Perhaps not, maybe you'd like to point to some?
I wouldn't mind reading some of these things you talk about, but simply saying, "duh read FAIR books" is lazy and highly suspect. If you really can't come up with links, then it's hard to believe that there really are any credible sources to back up your rant.
Your tone here makes it clear to me that you're only purpose was to mock those damn stupid antis that you hate hate hate.
I'm not kidding man, I want to read some of that stuff. I'm much more interested in learning the truth than about throwing dirt on the LDS Church. Humor us. If you're going to say things like, "ha! He is obviously unfamiliar with the literature" you have no credibility. Try something more like, "Have you read [link]? It talks specifically about [issue]. It basically says that [summary]." That would be a much better addition to the conversation. Right now, you're just trolling.
8 March 2010 at 4:06 am
I'm going to have to agree with Seth that all different kinds of groups, secular and religious, try to shove their values onto society. Certainly religious groups do some of it, but there are a lot of different special interests groups, mostly secular corporate interests, that lobby the government to screw us all over in lots of different ways.
8 March 2010 at 4:20 am
But Carson N, this does not equate to atheists doing so, which was Seth's point.
Anyway.
I think it's cool that Mike's shown up here, and I hope he contributes to the discussion. There are a lot of things I may not be aware of, and I'm very open to anything in the literature, if it's legitimately academic. But so far Mike's given us nothing. I hope he does.
8 March 2010 at 6:54 am
Daniel, again you are displaying a lack of understanding of the Mormon position.
Abortion most certainly is allowed under current LDS policy.
And LDS doctrine and policy does not equate abortion with "murder" either.
It's allowed in instances of rape or incest, and in instances where the pregnancy "endangers the health or well being of the mother" (which the mother and father are encouraged to figure out for themselves).
Not exactly clones of Focus on the Family, are we? Although you seem to think we are.
Secondly, the LDS Church takes NO position on embryonic stem cell stuff.
Indeed, the LDS Church doesn't even bother to assert when "life" begins, nor do they seem particularly interested in the topic.
The LDS alliance with the "Christian Right" is an alliance of mere convenience and always an uneasy one.
Keep that in mind.
8 March 2010 at 6:55 am
Daniel, you seem to be claiming that it's OK when an atheist attempts to impose his personal values on society, but not OK when a religious person does it.
8 March 2010 at 7:15 am
Seth, you have not understood.
I'm not talking about the Mormon position on abortion. I'm saying religious groups routinely attempt to influence legislation to restrict the behaviour of other people, whereas atheist groups do not.
Even school prayer is not really an example in your favour, since this could be seen as protecting the rights of non-Christians to be free from unacceptable forms of proselytisation.
8 March 2010 at 7:31 am
You realize that the landmark court case shooting down school prayer was brought by a MORMON student sick of listening to Southern Baptist prayers at school, right?
You sure know how to pick your examples, don't you?
Of course atheists try to impose their own values on society. This is not a controversial point – it happens to be kind of a key ingredient of democratic participation. Seriously, I don't even know why you are arguing this point.
People attempt to impose their values on society. In a democracy, this is done by a majority vote process. This is not a controversial concept.
Sure you might not see an atheist group picketing for a crackdown on homeschoolers, or whatever else. But that's not evidence that atheists don't attempt to impose their values on society. It merely shows that they are organizationally impotent.
But as private citizens, they attempt to implement their own values into the democratic government just as much as religious people do.
8 March 2010 at 7:51 am
Southern Baptist? Engle v. Vitale took place in New York. Could you try to keep your facts straight?
Groups of religious people have just as much right to influence laws as non-religious people. That's not my point. My point is that religious people try to control the actions of non-believers; atheists don't. You claimed there was no difference between the two. I'm pointing out a difference.
This is now officially a thread derail. Let's pull it back on track.
8 March 2010 at 8:01 am
Thanks for the correction.
The point of laws is to control human behavior.
Everyone in a democracy is invested in imposing their values on those laws.
Again, this is not a controversial point.
8 March 2010 at 8:01 am
Sorry to join the threadjack, but just to clear things up, I think Seth must be referring to Santa Fe ISD vs. Doe. An important case, but not "the landmark" one.
8 March 2010 at 9:29 pm
I find it ironic that while my initial post challenged Daniel’s unsupported assertions, the overwhelming response has been: Mike, back up your claims. For the sake of argument and for those who want links or sources as “back up” for my claims, I’ll deal with those things pointed out by Carson N.
My first claim to which Carson N takes exception was when I wrote: "But if Daniel had been keeping up with current Mormon studies, he’d know not to make such an outrageous claim."
This statement was made in response to Daniel who wrote:
“The Book of Mormon narrative never mentions anyone but the putative Hebrew inhabitants. If the place was crawling with people before any Hebrews arrived, the Mulekites and Nephites never ran across them.”
This, as I noted originally, is not the thinking of LDS scholars. For my “back up” you should read the material at the following links: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=505 and http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=1&num=1&id=3 . For material without links, try John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, and Brant L. Gardner, A Second Witness (6 vols).
Carson N’s claim #2 is answered in the same material.
Claim #3, the “artifact” evidence is answered in the books by Sorenson & Gardner.
Next, Carson takes issue with my comments about “peer reviewed” journals. I submit the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies as one such journal (more on this below).
Carson also complains about me not backing up the WoW evidence with sources. You can start with: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2000_Up_in_Smoke.html
Carson wrote: “I wouldn't mind reading some of these things you talk about, but simply saying, "duh read FAIR books" is lazy and highly suspect.”
Actually, it’s lazy of you to pontificate about things which you haven’t studied. This material has been available for years. It’s lazy to expect me to do your homework.
Carson said: “If you really can't come up with links, then it's hard to believe that there really are any credible sources to back up your rant.”
Does the fact that I now provided links automatically make you a believer? I doubt it.
Carson wrote: “Your tone here makes it clear to me that you're only purpose was to mock those damn stupid antis that you hate hate hate.”
I don’t hate anti-Mormons. Do you hate hate hate Mormons? I do dislike, however, when people make comments about me on publicly read blogs when they are uninformed about those matters upon which they write.
Caron N., I’m under no false illusion that me providing links will somehow placate you, but I’ve done my part, now it’s your turn to do the homework.
Maureen wrote: “Whilst reading through the literature published by FARMS is very interesting I was under the impression that the wider archaeological community has not acknowledged any evidence that supports the Book of Mormon.”
How many professional archaeologists are familiar with what the BoM says (not what folk-beliefs are circulated about it) as well as the LDS scholarly material written about it? Can you name 5? 3?
Maureen wrote:
“I think that Mormon archaeologists have improved their credibility over the years by being less rigid with the things that they will consider to be 'folk-tales' as you say.”
I would agree.
Maureen: “So, whilst suggesting that we take a look at FARMS, I guess we're looking for some more objective information.”
As a “back up” source for what I’m about to say—that “objectivity” is a myth—I suggest reading Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as well as (as objectivity is related to the writing of history), and Peter Novick, That Noble Dream (these are just for starters, there is lots more).
8 March 2010 at 9:38 pm
Daniel said…
“Hi, Mike! Good to see you on the blog. Thanks for coming over and engaging. I'm not interested in attacking straw men, but I don't think I am. I'm trying to present your view accurately, but I welcome the opportunity to get clarifications from you.”
I appreciate that.
…
Daniel: “I imagine that to your view, you're trying to clear away a lot of brush that's accumulated over the years, so you can make a harmonious synthesis of scripture and science.”
Partly true.
“But I'm guessing the reason you've decided to take on such an endeavour is because you've already decided (through unscientific means) that the Book of Mormon is a factual historical document. Having reached your conclusion, you are now erecting a structure that will make your conclusion seem plausible. (Scholarship: ur doin it rong.)”
Me: I’m guessing the reason you’ve decided to take on such an endeavor—to point out the mistakes in the BoM—is because you’ve already decided (through unscientific means) that the Book of Mormon is a fictional document. Having reached your conclusion, you are now erecting a structure that will make your conclusion seem plausible. (Which is, of course, to a great degree how scholarship works).
Daniel wrote: “Your approach so far has involved Keeping It Vague.”
Me: Your approach so far has involved in making unsupported and informed assertions (see above for the irony of this).
Daniel wrote:
“You're having to exclude statements from authorities that were once considered inspired.”
Me: And here, perhaps unintentionally, your erect your straw man once again. Before you continue making this mistake perhaps you should deal with the brief articles I already wrote on this issue (to which I’ve linked in a previous post).
Daniel: “Why do you attempt to explain away the words of prophets? Are you smarter than they are? Well, actually you are, you're much smarter — all of us are. But that's because we live a hundred years later than they did, with a hundred years of scientific knowledge behind us.”
Me: Really? Mormons don’t believe in living prophets? Ironic, again, how you already _know_ that prophets are not as smart as you in all areas of all things because they lived in the past.
8 March 2010 at 9:38 pm
Daniel: “But that's why trying to edit and interpret and sculpt their words (to bring them in line with current scientific understanding) isn't really honest.”
Me: Thanks for the nod of dishonesty on my part. I’m glad you’re not attacking a straw man and making the attempt to present my views accurately.
Daniel: “They're supposed to have known more than we do, not less.”
Really? On all things? How about black holes, gravity, electrons, and what kinds of cheese tastes best on a burger?
Daniel: “I do know what a peer-reviewed publication is, having published in them, and having occasionally reviewed for them. You'll understand if I have a higher standard than the 'Journal of Book of Mormon Studies'.”
Why not the JBMS? Can you say ad hominem? So you’re not really interested in evidence, argument, and analysis; you’re interested in politics.
“I'd love it if you could point me to anything that establishes anything about Nephite geography published in a secular journal. I don't care if it's geography, anthropology, linguistics, archaeology, genetics, or anything else.”
To quote a my friend Mesoamerican ethnohistory specialist Brant Gardner on this very topic: “You have narrowed things sufficiently that there is no way to meet the criteria. I don't think that says anything about Book of Mormon historicity, only your determination to make a requirement that cannot be met. For example, what chance do you think that Michael Coe would consider such an article for any journal for which he might be affiliated? He is actually more open that many.”
Your simplistic approach to this topic demonstrates your ignorance of secular journals on the promotion of specific religions (which is exactly what an article you are suggesting be written would do).
For more on this please Dr. Daniel Peterson’s article which address this in part (part 10 to be precise), at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=2&id=621
Daniel wrote:
“I think you've got nothing of the kind. That's because your fundamental premise — that the inhabitants of Ancient America were Hebrews — is unsupported by any evidence at all. But evidence isn't your game, is it?”
Daniel, just when I begin to wonder if you don't know what you’re talking about, you make comments like and confirm my suspicion. Firstly, I hope you know the difference between “evidence” and “proof.” On the former, there is a lots of evidence in favor of the BoM. As for your straw man claim that about Ancient Americans being Hebrews, you’ve got a lot of homework to do, my friend.
Since I can see that this isn’t going anywhere I’ll bow out & let you have the last word unless you are willing to address one issue at a time (I detest the anti-Mormon “shot gun” approach of criticisms). I suggest we begin with those issues as they appear in your original post. The first of which was: “Can it still be folk-doctrine if it's in the scriptures?” (which you imply could not be the case).
It’s your blog so you can do as you please. If you limit the discussion to one issue at a time, beginning with this one, I’ll participate. If not, adieu.
9 March 2010 at 12:08 am
Hey Mike, thanks for the links. I do appreciate them. I, like you, do not like straw man arguments, and so I think clearly pointing out the difference between the straw man position and the real position is important, and moves the discussion along better than insults and rhetoric.
You say, "I’m under no false illusion that me providing links will somehow placate you." Well, I'm actually placated. You brought up the idea that I'm too lazy to do my "homework." I'm a busy grad student, and I think reading homework works best when there is a teacher who selects the best excerpts to read. I'm unfamiliar with the apologetic arguments, so I'll check this stuff out. Thanks.
All the best.
9 March 2010 at 2:45 am
Carson,
Mike pointed you to some of the more in-depth answers, and they're definitely worth reading – if for no other reason than to let Mormon have their side of the story.
For future reference though, if you just want a quick-and-dirty response on a topic, you can simply visit FAIR's wiki site on Mormon apologetic-related topics:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Main_Page
Just type a likely key word into the search box and it will take you to some likely abbreviated responses.
For example, you can type in "polygamy" and get quite a few subtopic responses. Or you could type in "Joseph" and "trials" and get a response to the legal trials raised against Joseph Smith. Each topic cites the common criticism of the LDS position, then gives a quick response – followed by numerous citations to more detailed articles on the FAIR main site (or other sources).
9 March 2010 at 1:27 pm
Carson N & Seth, thanks for your amiable comments.
Carson, I can appreciate how tough it is to find time with so many things on your plate. I've got an extremely full plate myself & even have a tough time finding the opportunity to write my short articles for the Mormon Times. So no hurry, read when you can, and we can discuss things as you wish.
Seth, thank for posting a link to the FAIR Wiki. A lot of work goes in to it.
9 March 2010 at 2:51 pm
Mike:
You've unleashed three torrents worth of comments, and then claim that the shotgun approach is an 'anti' tactic? Sorry, but you're going to have to endure a little response. I'll try to keep it brief. Skip down to my next comment if you want to ignore it. That's where I'll pick up the folk-doctrine topic you wanted to discuss.
Maureen wrote: “Whilst reading through the literature published by FARMS is very interesting I was under the impression that the wider archaeological community has not acknowledged any evidence that supports the Book of Mormon.”
MA: How many professional archaeologists are familiar with what the BoM says (not what folk-beliefs are circulated about it) as well as the LDS scholarly material written about it? Can you name 5? 3?
This is a diversion. I'm not looking for secular archaeologists that are familiar with the Book of Mormon. I'd be happy with a claim or prediction made by LDS apologists that has been validated by secular researchers, whether they were aware that's what they were doing or not.
Me: I’m guessing the reason you’ve decided to take on such an endeavor—to point out the mistakes in the BoM—is because you’ve already decided (through unscientific means) that the Book of Mormon is a fictional document.
No, it was not easy to come to the conclusion that the evidence for Mormon claims was inadequate. Believers always seem to think ex-Mormons wanted to disbelieve. In many cases, it's just not so.
Me: Your approach so far has involved in making unsupported and informed assertions (see above for the irony of this).
Which claims: that apologists obfuscate and dissemble? I gave evidence of that when I linked to you.
Why not the JBMS? Can you say ad hominem? So you’re not really interested in evidence, argument, and analysis; you’re interested in politics.
Not at all. I suppose the JBMS is fine for discussing issues of faith among an audience of believing Mormons, but it would have more credibility if its contributors stepped outside of the faith-promoting echo chamber.
To quote a my friend Mesoamerican ethnohistory specialist Brant Gardner on this very topic: “You have narrowed things sufficiently that there is no way to meet the criteria. I don't think that says anything about Book of Mormon historicity, only your determination to make a requirement that cannot be met.
This is ridiculous. It's reasonable that no one has unearthed any evidence that could be favourable to the Book of Mormon. But it's wrong for you to say that it's impossible. However, thank you for admitting that you are unable to point to any secular research that would validate any Book of Mormon claim.
9 March 2010 at 2:55 pm
Right, here we are.
Let's take up the question of folk-doctrine.
I've followed your columns, and I've watched as you've dismissed all comments from past authorities as non-authoritative, essentially giving yourself a blank slate to make LDS doctrine whatever you want. What I think is disingenuous about this process is that these authorities are considered authoritative in other ways. Since Mormons consider them prophets, seers, and revelators, and suppose that a god speaks to them, I think it's reasonable that you wouldn't have to make the kind of excuses for them that you have.
If they're prophets, why are they so unreliable? You could argue that the Lord was unable to remove the human element, that he let us make mistakes, and other things that don't mesh well with the idea of prophetic reliability. I've got a better hypothesis: they were just regular guys pretending to be prophets, and had no special knowledge. Explains a lot, doesn't it?
Which takes us back to folk-doctrine. My own view is that all LDS doctrine is folk doctrine. Mormons don't have written creeds, so 'Mormon doctrine' is sort of a moving target as Latter-day Saints teach each other what the doctrine is with every new generation, whether they have to pull material from scripture, past leaders, or as I think is more common, prevailing cultural belief. But as you'll appreciate, my view is hardly that of an orthodox Mormon (or indeed, any Mormon at all).
Nor can I imagine that it would be very comforting for a Mormon to consider that things they believe might someday be retroactively nullified, not by a prophet, but by a guy working for FARMS.
9 March 2010 at 7:01 pm
Daniel, it doesn't really make sense to accuse Mike of "shotgunning" when all his comments were made in response to things you yourself said.
As for evidence of the Book of Mormon…
Joseph wrote about cement buildings and roads. He was laughed at by his contemporaries for saying something so far-fetched about the Native Americans.
Archeologists have since discovered cement buildings and roads.
Does this count as positive evidence of the Book of Mormon's validity in your book?
9 March 2010 at 7:44 pm
Daniel, just a quick drive-by. I'm actually leaving out of town in a few hours and won't be back till the end of the week. I read your post on the "shot gun" issues and although my fingers are itching to respond (because, quite frankly– and I don't mean this disrespectfully– you don't know what you're talking about). Nevertheless, I'll leave those details for another day & take a brief stab at your post about prophets.
You wrote:
I've followed your columns, and I've watched as you've dismissed all comments from past authorities as non-authoritative, essentially giving yourself a blank slate to make LDS doctrine whatever you want.
Me: This is prime example of 1) misreading what I've written, which leads to 2) a straw man argument.
Things like BoM geography (and many of the things which believers/critics discuss– are NOT doctrines. I believe the doctrines taught by prophets, and I seriously consider their advice, opinions, inspired statements, etc. But I don't consider them to be doctrinal– and neither do they.
Daniel:
What I think is disingenuous about this process is that these authorities are considered authoritative in other ways. Since Mormons consider them prophets, seers, and revelators, and suppose that a god speaks to them, I think it's reasonable that you wouldn't have to make the kind of excuses for them that you have.
Me: See above. Plus, and probably most importantly (as I point out in my series), all members are prophets, all speak to God. Prophet-leaders can receive revelation for the entire Church but EVERY member should determine if the prophets speak for God (read my past issues).
Daniel: If they're prophets, why are they so unreliable?
I think that overall they are very reliable. They are not, however, robots. They have opinions, proclivities, paradigms, etc. Anything less would deprive them of free will. Read my earlier issues.
Daniel: I've got a better hypothesis: they were just regular guys pretending to be prophets, and had no special knowledge. Explains a lot, doesn't it?
Sure it does. It doesn't explain away, however, the spiritual witness received by millions of people who speak to God themselves (and He speaks back) to let them know they are prophets. It also doesn't explain away the many things the BoM and JS got right (which a tangent we can continue at another time).
Daniel: Which takes us back to folk-doctrine. My own view is that all LDS doctrine is folk doctrine.
Which is certainly one way to explain it. I disagree with that assessment.
Daniel: Nor can I imagine that it would be very comforting for a Mormon to consider that things they believe might someday be retroactively nullified, not by a prophet, but by a guy working for FARMS.
Mike: I think it's great to do away with myths and misinformatio. Very comforting for me. Since these are NON-doctrinal issues, it doesn't bother me in the least. And it should bother any informed LDS either.
I also believe the Bible records the inspired thoughts of prophets, yet I don't believe that the entire world was covered with water, that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that the Sun stood still. These are all NON-doctrinal issues. I do believe, however, in doctrines such as– the existence of God, the divine son-ship of Christ, the reality of the resurrection, and several other things that ARE doctrinal.
Please show me how any of these DOCTRINES have changed or have been diluted by LDS apologists.
9 March 2010 at 9:36 pm
My own view is that all LDS doctrine is folk doctrine. Mormons don't have written creeds, so 'Mormon doctrine' is sort of a moving target as Latter-day Saints teach each other what the doctrine is with every new generation, whether they have to pull material from scripture, past leaders, or as I think is more common, prevailing cultural belief.
Daniel,
If it changed, it wasn't doctrine. It doesn't matter who taught it nor who believed it nor for how long. If it changed, it was only an opinion, proclivity, and/or paradigm.
If it hasn't changed, then it's doctrine. Unless it changes in the future, in which case it was only an opinion, proclivity, and/or paradigm.
See how easy that is? 😀
10 March 2010 at 2:01 am
Alright, let's take an example.
Can you find me any good evidence that Brigham Young ever had a REVELATION that blacks should not hold the Priesthood?
10 March 2010 at 2:13 am
Seth.. I found your point about the cement to be very interesting. It seems that it is used as one of the best evidences of the BOM, so it was a great place for me to start. I still don't know how to post a proper link but here is an address people can copy and paste if they like:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2214581/posts
http://www.exmormon.org.uk/tol_arch/atozelph/cement.htm
The first one is pro-mormon, the second one is obviously a non-member, in fact an ex-member writing it but I found it particularly useful as they used to argue for the BOM and now they argue against it. I'd like to know what his pivotal moment was.
From what I have read so far it seems as though there are some archaeological findings that can be pointed to as evidence, albeit quite weak evidence, for some of the things mentioned in the BOM.
The archaeological community still considers that none of these evidences are very strong. There are still many problems with proving the existence of cows, horses, ox, domesticated sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheat, barley, silk , steel, swords, scimitars, chariots etc. I know that there are apologetics arguments about terminology and such but the actual physical evidence for the BOM is still very weak compared to that against it.
For me, given the disgust that I feel over the pointless practice of polygamy, the racist practice of restricting blacks from holding the priesthood, the deplorable actions recently of stripping gay couples of their rights… I cannot fathom believing in a book that is so weakly supported by actual evidence.
I look at the way people are treated and make up my mind as to whether the church is a force for good or a force for evil, you can easily guess where I stand on that one.
10 March 2010 at 2:15 am
http://www.exmormon.org.uk/tol_arch/atozelph/cement.htm
sorry, missed the end of that address the first time
10 March 2010 at 2:16 am
ah! did it again
http://www.exmormon.org.uk
/tol_arch/atozelph/cement.htm
10 March 2010 at 2:29 am
Maureen, my point was not to provide decisive evidence.
My point was to provide evidence – period.
10 March 2010 at 2:47 am
No worries Seth. I just wonder why anyone would be ok with such flimsy evidence when the evidence against the BOM is stacked so high and when the church doesn't have a good track record for its treatment of people who don't fit the mold. You know that saying "By their fruits ye shall know them", that's some pretty nasty fruit I'm looking at.
I'd like to see people discarding old text books on 'how to live life', I mean really, when I had my first baby I said that same thing everyone does – ah! where's the instruction manual! – same with life, there is no instruction manual, no bible or BOM, only our inbuilt instincts to protect and love and be the best that we can, always learning, always questioning.
10 March 2010 at 3:05 am
Actually, Seth, that is the kind of thing I'm looking for. That means we can take it to the next level and build a more complete picture, so we can decide if the cement thing is for real, or just a lucky hit.
If the places that have cement are areas of Lehite activity, then we fail to see other things that we ought to see there, like evidence of Semitic writing, Egyptian loan words in nearby languages, and so on. Which, for now, suggests to me that the cement was a lucky guess. Or maybe not so lucky, given the wood/cement problem described on the page Maureen linked to.
But that's the right idea.
10 March 2010 at 3:12 am
I think I may have been travelling down a jack in the thread…
I'll try to get closer to the opening post.
Part of it was about the way some apologists dismiss things that previous church leaders have said and now call it folk-lore etc.
If you still believe the church to be a force for good then please work on some of these things –
There is one particular folk-lore that really needs to be addressed. When I taught the yw, we had our lessons on eternal marriage and discovered that the girls thought that if they couldn't find a husband in this life then they could marry someone cool like Nephi or Moroni in the next life, since they thought that polygamy would allow them to do this. How are these tales still being told!?
And if there are people with the power to change old held beliefs into mere folk lore and then eradicate them, please address the inequalities in the temple.
In fact, please MIKE ASH, please visit feministmormonhousewives.org and see if you can address some of their issues. If you are going to change the rules please start there. I could sleep better if you did that. Seriously though, could you do that?
10 March 2010 at 4:29 am
I believe Daniel that Mormon scholars have noted similarities between the Mayan language and Egyptian/Hebrew on a few points. Can't remember the article much though.
10 March 2010 at 4:42 am
I think Kuri has it. Mormon doctrine is a fluid. Makes you feel bad for those early church leaders. They just couldn't get it right, could they?
The problem is compounded because LDS leaders now are quite loath to define what Mormon doctrine is. But people are pretty happy to say that something's not doctrine if it's been falsified by science. Which means that LDS doctrine is shrinking every year as more and more 'peripheral' doctrine (once considered 'core') gets pared away. Pared away by folks like Mike, I might say, whose 'non-authoritative' statements nonetheless percolate up through the layers of Mormondom if they're sufficiently plausible.
Mike, I was extremely surprised that you described the 'Ancient Americas were Hebrews' idea as a 'straw man'. Isn't that sort of a core doctrine? If you're disavowing even this, then Mormon apologetics is much more radical than even I had suspected. How firm a foundation indeed.
It doesn't explain away, however, the spiritual witness received by millions of people who speak to God themselves (and He speaks back) to let them know they are prophets.
Ahem — they're sometimes prophets who sometimes speak as men, and Mike will let them know the difference.
Actually, this is the easiest to explain. Missionaries prime their investigators by describing the feelings they'll get in very broad terms. Just about anything you feel will qualify. Psychology does the rest. People can have an emotional feeling because of a need to belong, because they liked the book, or because they're a kid in the MTC being shipped to Peru next month and they're freaking out because they don't have a testimony. It doesn't mean a supernatural spirit is telling them anything.
It also doesn't explain away the many things the BoM and JS got right (which a tangent we can continue at another time).
Looking forward to it!
10 March 2010 at 4:58 am
Maureen,
FWIW, some other evidence that arguably provides a little support for the Book of Mormon includes the discovery of a plausible route from Jerusalem to the Arabian coast that matches up well with the description given in the BOM, a couple of personal names in the BOM that resemble genuine Egyptian names, and the presence in the BOM of a form of composition called chiasmus that apparently is found in a lot of ancient Hebraic writing.
10 March 2010 at 5:01 am
Far too generous, Kuri. As you pointed out earlier, chiasmus is weak. Weak is chiasmus.
10 March 2010 at 5:03 am
Thanks Kuri, I'm aware of all of those evidences but I am not hugely familiar with them. I will take a closer look as I do find it to be an interesting topic.. it's not that easy to completely do away with something that I learned about for 30 years 😉
10 March 2010 at 5:13 am
Daniel, I don't have time to waste with unsupported assertions like "chiasmus is weak."
OK, thanks for the tip. You gonna back that up?
Or are you just here to posture?
10 March 2010 at 5:52 am
Daniel,
And the geographic description in the Book of Mormon is pretty vague, and the Egyptian-sounding names could easily be coincidence, and Green Eggs and Ham, for example, is a chiasmatic work but not a translation from ancient Hebrew.
So I wouldn't say any of them are strong evidence, but they're still small points in the apologists' favor. (Versus dozens/hundreds/thousands in the other direction, but still, they are points.)
10 March 2010 at 5:58 am
"Versus dozens/hundreds/thousands in the other direction, but still, they are points."
It seems unsupported assertion is all anyone is good for around here (myself included).
Welcome to the Internet, I guess.
10 March 2010 at 6:52 am
"Unsupported assertions…"
Well, I'm not sure what you want, Seth. Archaeology has developed an evidence-based historical narrative that completely contradicts the BOM's account as it was understood and taught for the majority of its existence. The fact that Mormon apologists engage in the task of trying to fit the BOM into that narrative (rather than archeologists trying to fit their account into the BOM's) would seem to settle the question of which account is stronger.
So I don't see why it's necessary to provide citations or whatever every time someone says that archaeology contradicts or doesn't support the BOM. I'd think we could all stipulate that.
10 March 2010 at 7:35 am
kuri, while that view is fashionable within some ex-Mormon circles, it is not a decided matter – no matter how much you and Daniel may want to claim the high ground here and act like it is.
Just about every supposed anachronism, every attack on the Book of Mormon, has been met with multiple arguments and explanations. The battle-field is utterly undecided here. No side has won a decisive advantage here, as much as the folks at RfM might like to posture to that effect.
So you can take all this grand rhetoric and condescension about the weakness of the Mormon position somewhere else. It doesn't fly with me. And you simply repeating "our arguments are good, and yours are bad" does not really change anything.
I'm not exactly a guy who is mouthing the Mormon party line all the time. In fact, I rarely do.
But I think mere bare assertions that the Book of Mormon are implausible are nothing more than hot air. Plenty of the criticisms of the Book of Mormon are frankly, sheer crap. Some are descent, but I've never, ever, seen one that was even close to slam dunk against the book.
The DNA argument has been an utter fiasco for the ex-Mormon community, and has been so thoroughly shot down that it's become almost pathetic to see people try to prop it up. Once grand assertions about a decisive refutation against the book have more or less degenerated into bitter whimpering about how modern Mormons are supposed to be bound by Joseph Smith's idle musings about geography.
How the mighty have fallen…
So there you go. I can make my own bare assertions.
Now, you can shoot back with some more unsupported crap about how Mormonism is "obviously" fighting a losing battle here, or we can move the conversation on to something actually useful – something that doesn't rely on the forcefulness of rhetoric of "some guy on the Internet."
10 March 2010 at 7:59 am
while that view is fashionable within some ex-Mormon circles
Didn't even go a full clause before self-pwnage. Sad.
10 March 2010 at 8:46 am
So, is anyone here going to say something substantive or not?
10 March 2010 at 9:01 am
Isn't it night where you are, Seth?
Go to bed. The Mountain Dew is wearing off.
10 March 2010 at 4:02 pm
Just about every supposed anachronism, every attack on the Book of Mormon, has been met with multiple arguments and explanations. The battle-field is utterly undecided here. No side has won a decisive advantage here…
Um, OK, right. And evolution hasn't happened, there is no global warming, vaccines cause autism, 9/11 was an inside job, Obama was born in Kenya, and the government is hiding its knowledge of UFOs.
10 March 2010 at 4:11 pm
Like I said Kuri, let me know when you have something substantive to contribute that doesn't simply require me to take your word for it.
10 March 2010 at 11:25 pm
Kuri: This is the takeaway for me as well. If we've learned anything from the last year, it should be that there is literally no proposition so insane that it won't be believed by someone, and people have a seemingly endless ability to construct complicated webs of tenuous arguments to keep themselves believing these insane propositions. But they need an echo chamber to keep it up.
FARMS is an echo chamber, just like the fora employed by birthers, truthers, moon landing hoaxers, or AGW deniers. In all these cases, their arguments have no traction in the mainstream scientific community, but the True Believer can explain that. They're biased. They're In On It. They're Anti. Or whatever.
11 March 2010 at 12:12 am
RfM and exmormon.org are echo chambers, just like the fora employed by birthers, truthers, moon landing hoaxers, or AGW deniers. In all these cases, their arguments are only tenuously based in a distorted view of science or the religion they are addressing, and usually have been answered by perfectly adequate responses. But they can explain that away. They're biased. They're In On It. They're a "morgbot." Or whatever.
11 March 2010 at 3:09 am
I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about the mainstream scientific community.
RfM and exmormon.org don't claim to be legitimate sources of scholarly articles. FARMS does.
11 March 2010 at 3:56 pm
I realize I am just a ninny-headed "true believer," but for the record, I didn't get the impression that Daniel has been reasonably trying to represent or understand Mike Ash's articles. That's a subjective judgment, but it is an honest one.
12 March 2010 at 10:52 pm
After taking a few days off & then revisting this site I'm reminded why I shy away from discussion lists such as this one. While kicking a cowpie might look like fun, in the end the cowpie doesn't understand the engagement and you just end up with smelly stuff on your shoes.
Daniel has offered virtually nothing of substance in this entire thread– at least nothing that relates to the article of mine which he criticized. He's failed to engage my arguments– either in this thread or in the links to which I directed him. He continues to make unsupported assertions that are void of evidence; he has a penchant of misunderstanding LDS positions; and he likes to engage in the strawman and ad homineme. His latest ad hominem is displayed below:
"FARMS is an echo chamber, just like the fora employed by birthers, truthers, moon landing hoaxers, or AGW deniers. In all these cases, their arguments have no traction in the mainstream scientific community, but the True Believer can explain that. They're biased. They're In On It. They're Anti. Or whatever."
No attempt to engage arguments. He's not interested in truth. His biased mind is made up & now he's simply stating whatever rhetoric he thinks can support his preconceived conclusions.
Since he both unwilling & unable to discuss actual issues, I will no longer participate in this "discussion." I'm sure he'll have lots of nice things to say about me and the "real" reason I'm bowing it; it's to be expected.
Adios & I hope I learned my lesson about trying to talk to those who have no real desire to understand someone else's position.
13 March 2010 at 7:43 am
No attempt to engage arguments. He's not interested in truth. His biased mind is made up & now he's simply stating whatever rhetoric he thinks can support his preconceived conclusions.
Exactly the kind of up-is-down view I would have expected. You must have learned these complaints by rote, having heard people use them on you so very very often.
13 March 2010 at 3:51 pm
Well, it's not like you provided any support for your assertions.
Basically most of your posts boiled down to "I'm right – so there."
13 March 2010 at 4:22 pm
Seth R.- agreed. Daniel doesn't seem to have engaged Mike Ash, but preferred the method of the new atheists, the new true believers.
13 March 2010 at 4:37 pm
Yeah, my experience with New Atheists is that their arguments tend to go something like:
1. You're wrong.
2. I'm right.
3. Anyone who isn't an idiot or a tool would know I'm right.
4. You disagree with me – which makes you an idiot (if your arguments haven't been that good) or a tool (if your arguments actually have been good).
5. Since you're an idiot or a tool, I don't have to waste my time with you – because obviously all the worthwhile people understand where I'm coming from and agree with me.
New Atheism:
The new fundamentalism. Now you too can get your daily dose of fundamentalism only without the usual religious logo and theme song!
13 March 2010 at 5:14 pm
I think David Bentley Hart's observation is pretty on target: "I can honestly say that there are many forms of atheism that I find far more admirable than many forms of Christianity or of religion in general. But atheism that consists entirely in vacuous arguments afloat on oceans of historical ignorance, made turbulent by storms of strident self-righteousness, is as contemptible as any other form of dreary fundamentalism…[T]he tribe of the New Atheists is something of a disappointment. It probably says more that it is comfortable to know about the relative vapidity of our culture that we have lost the capacity to produce profound unbelief."
13 March 2010 at 5:29 pm
*more THAN it is, rather.
13 March 2010 at 8:18 pm
Guys:
I've done a few things in this post:
– Made some fact claims, which I've backed up
– Made some guesses as to motivation, which Mike has not responded to
– Made some generalities, in the form of a punchy closing paragraph. If you want support for that, I'll point you to Mike's body of work.
Let me know specifically what fact claims I haven't backed up, and I'll respond. Unless you're just blowing off steam, which is fine.
By the way, the 'atheism is the new fundamentalism' is beyond tired. If I were Mike, I'd take the opportunity to tell you how little you know about it, but it's not my style. Instead, check out the IQ debate with Dawkins and Grayling on YouTube; it's fun to watch, and you might hear a new idea.
I'm heading into an Internet black hole (international flight), so give me a little while.
13 March 2010 at 11:42 pm
I've watched debates on YouTube with these guys before. My experience is that both sides tend to cherry-pick the debates that make their guy look the best and the other guy look the worst. I also happen to know that Hitchens has beem in hiding from at least one or two good debate opponents on the other side on grounds of them not being "well-known enough" (even though some of them are the premiere scholars in their field).
So I'm not particularly impressed that you have some YouTube links.
Did you get your education from YouTube? Or like Hitchens, do you get all your opinions from Google searches?
As for points you've actually backed up – name me one. Because I do believe I must have missed it.
14 March 2010 at 12:33 am
If Daniel is taking those debates as his model, his unwillingness (or inability?) to reasonably discuss issues with Ash has become much more understandable.
14 March 2010 at 7:33 am
I gave some specific and scriptural reasons why Latter-day Saints once concluded that Lehites (and Jaredites) were alone on the American continent.
I think Mike's column (and the attempts of LDS apologists generally) represents an attempt to rewrite history and evade the implications of past statements from leaders. I give that as an opinion, which you may disagree with, but don't blame me if you are unable to tell the difference between facts and opinion in a piece of writing.
In response, Mike has simply asserted that I don't 'understand' LDS apologetics. I find this to be very like the 'Courtier's Reply', which boils down to: How can you say the Emperor has no clothes, when you haven't studied textiles or fashion design?
On the other hand, Seth did advance the discussion with the cement comment. For which I am very grateful.
14 March 2010 at 7:45 am
How does the fact that past Mormons stated something or believed something make it binding on today?
Neither Mike, nor anyone else here ever tried to "rewrite history" as you put it. None of us have actually been denying documented statements from past leaders. No rewrite at all – contrary to your assertion.
What we have been stating is that this aspect of the past need not be binding on the present or future of the LDS Church. You have given no persuasive reason why it should be – other than to retreat to your default fundamentalist view of religion – where everything a prophet says has to be 100% straight from God's own brain.
But that's merely your fundamentalist paradigm talking. Nothing else.
So no – in essentials, I don't see that you ever really validated or supported your position persuasively here.
I'm sorry Mormonism isn't proving as easy a target as you'd like. But that's your problem, not mine.
14 March 2010 at 8:33 am
Sorry you're not persuaded. But that's okay. Not everyone will be.
14 March 2010 at 4:41 pm
Daniel, were you under the mistaken impression that limited geography theories or those involving mesoamerica were a new development?
14 March 2010 at 6:31 pm
Even Joseph Smith remarked with excitement on discoveries in Mesoamerica that came to his attention late in his life.
So if you want to claim that Mike Ash is contradicting Joseph Smith, I'd have to ask you to clarify which statements of Joseph Smith you think he is contradicting.
15 March 2010 at 8:44 am
Chiasmus: If this is used as evidence for Joseph Smith being a true prophet, then I believe James Strang should have been the true successor of Joseph Smith, not Brigham Young. Strang's scriptures contained chiasmus as well:
http://www.strangite.org/Chiasmus.htm
Cement: I always thought this was the word being used for adobe in New England in the 1800s.
Statements by Joseph Smith relating to ancient America and the Book of Mormon:
"“He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang." (Testimony of Joseph Smith, Beginning of Book of Mormon)
"The camp passed through Huntsville, in Randolph County [Missouri], which has been appointed as one of the Stakes of Zion, and is the ancient site of the City of Manti…." [Sept. 1838] (The Latter-day Saints' Millennial Star, "History of Joseph Smith," Vol. 16, page 296, May 13, 1854)
"The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians;….." (History of the Church, 1:315; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 17.)
Near Griggsville, Illinois: "The contemplation of the scenery around us produced peculiar sensations in our bosoms: and subsequently the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains. The curse was taken from Zelph, or, at least, in part – one of his thigh bones was broken by a stone flung from a sling, while in battle, years before his death. He was killed in battle by the arrow found among his ribs, during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites." (History of the Church, 2:79-80; June 3, 1834).
The day after the Zelph recounting, in a letter to his wife Emma: "The whole of our journey, in the midst of so large a company of social honest and sincere men, wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity, and gazing upon a country the fertility, the splendour and the goodness so indescribable, all serves to pass away time unnoticed." (June 4, 1834)
17 March 2010 at 5:23 pm
For a list of statements attributed directly to Joseph Smith on the subject of Book of Mormon location, see here:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Statements/Joseph_Smith
It seems clear enough from these statements from Joseph Smith and other statements from his contemporaries that early LDS notions of Book of Mormon geography were very much a work in progress and evolving over time. I see little reason to view such statements as binding me or anyone else to a intercontinental geographic model for the Book of Mormon.
On the Zelph thing, Kenneth Godfrey observed:
"If the history of the church were to be revised today using modern historical standards, readers would be informed that Joseph Smith wrote nothing about the discovery of Zelph, and that the account of uncovering the skeleton in Pike County is based on the diaries of seven members of Zion's Camp, some of which were written long after the event took place. We would be assured that the members of Zion's Camp dug up a skeleton near the Illinois River in early June 1834. Equally sure is that Joseph Smith made statements about the deceased person and his historical setting. We would learn that it is unclear which statements attributed to him derived from his vision, as opposed to being implied or surmised either by him or by others. Nothing in the diaries suggests that the mound itself was discovered by revelation.
"Furthermore, readers would be told that most sources agree that Zelph was a white Lamanite who fought under a leader named Onandagus (variously spelled). Beyond that, what Joseph said to his men is not entirely clear, judging by the variations in the available sources. The date of the man Zelph, too, remains unclear. Expressions such as "great struggles among the Lamanites," if accurately reported, could refer to a period long after the close of the Book of Mormon narrative, as well as to the fourth century AD. None of the sources before the Willard Richards composition, however, actually say that Zelph died in battle with the Nephites, only that he died "in battle" when the otherwise unidentified people of Onandagus were engaged in great wars "among the Lamanites."
"Zelph was identified as a "Lamanite," a label agreed on by all the accounts. This term might refer to the ethnic and cultural category spoken of in the Book of Mormon as actors in the destruction of the Nephites, or it might refer more generally to a descendant of the earlier Lamanites and could have been considered in 1834 as the equivalent of "Indian" (see, for example, D&C 3:18, 20; 10:48; 28:8; 32:2). Nothing in the accounts can settle the question of Zelph's specific ethnic identity."
Kenneth W. Godfrey, "What is the Significance of Zelph In The Study Of Book of Mormon Geography?," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8/2 (1999): 70–79
The accounts of the Zelph incident were all written years after the fact and the facts and textual history are extremely convoluted. I don't find the incident noteworthy for establishing much of anything honestly.
17 March 2010 at 11:02 pm
What was I supposed to gain from looking at the FAIR link? I have read all of those before, and if you have too, then why ask for them? Also, they don't seem to have the one where he declares a place in Illinois the site of the city of Manti.
If you and Kenneth are willing to ignore the fact that Moroni said that the Book of Mormon was a record of the "former inhabitants of this continent, and the SOURCE FROM WHENCE THEY SPRANG." As well as skip over the numerous Zelph accounts and even his own letter to his wife the day after, then good for the both of you.
If you believe his story changed through the years on where the BofM lands were, then I might be willing to agree with you. I might also agree that his first vision story evolved as well as his godhead doctrine right along with it.
17 March 2010 at 11:17 pm
Last I checked, Mesoamerica WAS on "this continent."
Has it moved or something?
18 March 2010 at 6:39 pm
"He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang."
Who were the inhabitants of the American continent prior to the "white man"? The so-called Native Americans. Is the "source from whence they sprang" Jerusalem? Not hardly.
I suppose you might argue that Joseph didn't remember the conversation correctly and the angel really said, "He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang."
That way, the angel isn't referring to Native Americans as a whole and the argument for a small population disappearing in the DNA of a larger population might hold more water.
Of course, all of that is still ignoring the many accounts of Joseph Smith placing The Book of Mormon geography on more of the continent than Central America.
18 March 2010 at 8:14 pm
Nope, don't need to change the wording.
Even under your original wording it still does not stipulate Lehi as being the source of ALL inhabitants. The use of the word "the" in the statement simply isn't as strong as you'd obviously like it to be here.
So, not a problem.
P.S. Even under limited geography theory, population genetics makes the spread of Lehite ancestry to ALL inhabitants of the continent not impossible. Every last Native American on the planet could have a marginal bit of Lehite heritage back along the line, and it could STILL be entirely untraceable to modern genetics.
I don't think this is likely, but it isn't impossible.
At any rate, I think the most likely interpretation is that Moroni simply wasn't making a scientific statement about where Eskimos come from. That wasn't why he was there and it was irrelevant to the spiritual message he was giving Joseph Smith.
What else ya got?
18 March 2010 at 9:20 pm
So, if I came up to you, handed you a book and said, "This is an account of the former inhabitants of this neighborhood," you wouldn't find it weird if it only contained the story of a family that lived in one particular house in the neighborhood? There is an error in my statement that would need to be corrected. Either I should have stated, "This is an account of former inhabitants of this neighborhood," or I should have said, "This is an account of the former inhabitants of this house." (And the latter sentence might still be incorrect if more than one family had lived in that particular house and the story wasn't about the family immediately preceding the family now living there.)
18 March 2010 at 9:34 pm
"So, if I came up to you, handed you a book and said, "This is an account of the former inhabitants of this neighborhood," you wouldn't find it weird if it only contained the story of a family that lived in one particular house in the neighborhood?"
No, I wouldn't. Because that is grammatically within the meaning of the statement. Basically, your grammatical argument is bad in this instance.
18 March 2010 at 9:36 pm
Oh, and by the way…
Do you expect Moroni in Joseph's room to use modern 21st century English grammar, or backwoods 1800s New York grammar?
18 March 2010 at 9:46 pm
I would expect him to use correct and clear grammar. Taking the statement as meaning Native Americans as a whole, correct and clear grammar was used. Taking it in your way, it becomes incorrect and unclear.
18 March 2010 at 9:49 pm
No, it's not incorrect.
The sentence clearly allows Lehi to not be the source ancestor for many Native Americans. The word "the" does not necessarily have the exclusive force you think it does here.
18 March 2010 at 9:57 pm
If the word "the" doesn't mean what it means, then what's the purpose of it in the sentence?
18 March 2010 at 10:16 pm
It's simply a stylistic choice.
Frankly, I'm kinda curious as to who gives a flying leap one way or the other.
I will just say that if this – if the best you got to prove a continental model of Book of Mormon geography is a grammar technicality from an 1800s farm boy almost 200 years age, then… well… that's kinda sad.
19 March 2010 at 12:04 am
I think this thread has been very educational. People who have asked me for back-up for my claims? Here it is. Seth has inadvertently provided it point for point.
Apologists don't make claims of their own — they just try to disavow claims made by others. They try to redefine words, and claim that statements just simply couldn't mean what an ordinary person would think they'd mean at face value. They twist and dodge, all in the service of preserving faith and avoiding reality.
Words have meanings? How unsophisticated. How un-nuanced.
19 March 2010 at 12:39 am
If you want to think this conversation has reflected well on your position Daniel, you go ahead and do that.
19 March 2010 at 1:11 am
I do, because you're demonstrating all the devices I could have wished to discuss.
19 March 2010 at 3:44 am
I won't hold my breath for you to actually explain yourself in a substantive fashion.
19 March 2010 at 6:41 am
Breathe easy. In the OP and in a previous post, I wrote of the tendency for apologists to
– not advance hypotheses that could be disproven (which you have done throughout this thread)
– downplay earlier statements from leaders (which you did most recently at 18 March 2010 1:23 AM)
– play semantic games with the interpretation of rather unambiguous words and sentences (see comment at 19 March 2010 5:49 AM).
Bravo. Now all we need is for you to fall back on spirituality as the only real way of verifying the Book of Mormon, and you'll have a perfect record.
I get the feeling that comments in every post about apologetics will mostly be me re-explaining my original post to Seth.
19 March 2010 at 7:36 am
"not advance hypotheses that could be disproven"
Basically, you're put out that we don't act like the idiots you'd prefer to be debating.
I agree that might be more on the intellectual level of the arguments you've been trying to make here, but life's tough.
19 March 2010 at 5:24 pm
"if the best you got to prove a continental model of Book of Mormon geography is a grammar technicality from an 1800s farm boy almost 200 years age, then… well… that's kinda sad."
It's not, but you have far too flippantly thrown out the other evidence. Also, I would go into the wording in the Book of Mormon of Jesus and others referring to "this land" (the land the Nephites and Lamanites were on) as being the land of liberty and site of the New Jerusalem, but you would just find a way to discount the obvious explanation of those passages as well.
Anyway, sorry for the delay, but curiosity got the better of me and I thought that I would ask the "neighborhood" question to some English teachers. I received two answers on this.
Here is the question I posted:
"Hello, I am having a disagreement with someone when it comes to the word "the." I will give you the specific example that we disagree over and try not to give away which side I am on.
Let's say that a person hands you a book and tells you, "This is a record of the former inhabitants of this neighborhood." When you read it, you find that it contains the record of a family that lived in one particular house in the neighborhood, but does not contain information about anyone else. While the description was not as clear as it could be, is it still, technically, correct to state it the way it was stated? If the statement is incorrect, could you please state what the error in the sentence is? Also, if possible, could you tell me if the answer you give would be different if you lived in the early to mid-1800s? (Just in case grammar has changed drastically enough since then.)"
This answer comes from Crawford Kilian- Graduate of Columbia, University, professor in Vancouver, newspaper education columnist and the person who responds at the site "Ask the English Teacher":
"It's technically OK, I guess, but a lie can be grammatical and still be a lie. The expression "the former inhabitants" implies "all the former inhabitants." If the sentence had been written, "some of the former inhabitants" it would be both technically and factually correct.
I don't think that English usage in the mid-19th century was that much different from today's, at least in this context."
Couldn't have said it better myself. While grammatically correct, the content/meaning is a lie.
Here is the answer I received from an expert on another site:
"By using the definite article "the", the speaker seems to imply that all former inhabitants of the neighbourhood will be in that book of record. If there was indeed only one family living in that neighbourhood years ago, then the statement is correct. However, if there were more than one family living in that neighbourhood years ago, then the statement describing the book of record could be:
'This is a record of some/a few/ several/ a number of / a group of former inhabitants of this neighbourhood'"
19 March 2010 at 6:31 pm
Yeah, the professor is basically saying the same thing I am. The word allows both meanings. I didn't see anything there that changes my mind on this.
19 March 2010 at 6:56 pm
He's calling what the angel said grammatically correct, but, factually, a lie.
19 March 2010 at 7:03 pm
Meaning, what he said was a proper sentence in the same way that a sentence like: "My car is white." Is a grammatically correct statement, but still, factually, a lie because my car isn't actually white.
"He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang."
While the above sentence is not grammatically wrong in any way. Since you argue that the Book of Mormon is only contains the record of Meso-American people, then the statement is a lie.
19 March 2010 at 7:33 pm
"the former inhabitants"
Lehi is one of "the former inhabitants."
Simple.
"the" does not have to be comprehensive. It can be selective. And I don't think the way you even presented the question to the professor made the distinction clear.
The way you framed the question to him made it sound like you were assuming all inhabitants to begin with and were THEN given an account of some. Framed that way, the professor saw dishonesty. Like you had been promised an account of all inhabitants, but only got some.
Basically, you poisoned the well with the way you asked the question to begin with. The statement never promised you an account of everyone, but the way you framed the hypothetical made it sound like you had been promised a comprehensive account.
So no, I don't think you've established anything.
You've merely demonstrated how critics of the LDS position like to ask loaded and leading questions of experts and then claim to have academic backing for their position.
19 March 2010 at 7:57 pm
You're killing me Seth.
"Lehi is one of 'the former inhabitants.'"
While that may be the Mormon belief, current Mormon belief isn't that he was "the former inhabitant of this continent," implying he was the only one. According to Mormon belief, Lehi was "a former inhabitant of this continent." You're confusing your singular determiners. Using the words "one of" is cheating and changing the language.
If Meso-America is the model, then they were "one of the former groups that inhabited this continent." They were not "the former inhabitants of this continent."
I can't believe I'm still arguing this, ha ha, but I'll keep going. It really is just basic English.
——
The following is taken from a nice website that has a page on using the word "the" in scenarios like the one we are talking about:
Three special groups of nouns are considered definite in reference even if they have not been mentioned in the preceding sentence or clause.
1.
The first group consists of nouns which refer to shared knowledge of the situation or context. For example, in Canada you can say
The Prime Minister will arrive tomorrow
because there is only one Prime Minister in Canada, and so it is clear to whom you are referring. Similarly, if there is only one hospital in the town, you can say
He's been working in the hospital for two years.
But you couldn't say this in Toronto, where there are many hospitals. You would have to name the particular hospital in your first reference to it:
He's been working at Toronto General Hospital for two years. He says the hospital is in a financial mess.
2.
The second group consists of nouns referring to unique objects:
e.g., the sun/the earth/the Pope/the sky/the equator
3.
Superlative adjectives and unique adjectives form the third group. Because there can be only one of these (only one of a series can be the tallest or the best or the first), they take the definite article:
Mexico City is the most populous city in the world.
I enjoyed the first part, but I was disappointed at the end.
She is the principal researcher.
http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/english-as-a-second-language/definite-article
19 March 2010 at 8:06 pm
I'm throwing a barbecue tomorrow.
The relatives will arrive at 3:00 PM.
Now tell me – does this mean ALL of my relatives will arrive at 3:00 PM tomorrow?
19 March 2010 at 8:07 pm
Oh, and by the way, limited geography has been the dominant theory of Book of Mormon studies for over 50 years now.
I just had a Book of Mormon class a couple years ago where the teacher, with no prompting from me or anyone else, mentioned a limited geographic scope. I even heard a limited mesoamerican setting when I was in PRIMARY as a kid.
19 March 2010 at 9:57 pm
"The members of congress voted in favor of health care reform."
Does that mean all congress members voted in favor? I could give countless other examples.
Not to mention that you are assuming a certain level of grammatical precision from Joseph Smith in telling the story in Joseph Smith History that I think is unwarranted.
Let's see how grammatically accurate Joseph Smith was elsewhere in the Joseph Smith History.
JSH 1:6 – "…the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real."
So, by your interpretation, this verse must mean that Joseph Smith meant ALL priests everywhere, and ALL converts everywhere. Every last one of them – in the entire world – were having insincere pretended feelings – including members of Joseph's own family (JSH 1:7).
By your insistence here, this is how we are supposed to read Joseph Smith's account.
I'll leave it to the readers to judge who is being unreasonable here.
19 March 2010 at 10:44 pm
"The relatives will arrive at 3:00 PM."
This is a poor example because the implication in such a sentence is, "The relatives that are coming will arrive at 3:00 PM." Look at number 1 from the website I quoted: "The first group consists of nouns which refer to shared knowledge of the situation or context." When using that sentence, the person being spoken to would need to know who you are referring to for that to make sense. Otherwise, they might follow your statement with a question of "which relatives?"
The Moroni quote fits perfectly the website's scenario of:
"Similarly, if there is only one hospital in the town, you can say
He's been working in the hospital for two years.
But you couldn't say this in Toronto, where there are many hospitals. You would have to name the particular hospital in your first reference to it"
As a parallel:
You could say that you had a record of the former inhabitants of Meso-America (assuming the record covers all the peoples who have lived there), but you couldn't say this of the whole continent, where there are many former inhabitants. You would have to name the particular inhabitants in your first reference to it."
When you quote Joseph Smith, he has already put his all-inclusive statements within a particular context. Previous to verse 6, which you quoted, Joseph had already specified the area he was referring to:
vs5: "Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country."
So, no, not all everywhere on Earth, but, yes, all the sects in the Manchester area.
Similarly, in vs 22 of the same history, when he says that the public mind was excited against him creating "a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute [him]," I don't think he means every sect everywhere, but he has already put it in the context of the Manchester area, just as the quote supposed to be from Moroni puts the Book of Mormon in the context of the North American continent.
I am aware that many LDS scholars have accepted the Central American model since it became more and more apparent that the hemispheric model didn't fit. I am also aware that that has largely trickled down to the masses. I'm not sure what your point is, though. It doesn't change what Joseph taught about the location of the Book of Mormon city of Manti, nor what was recorded in those who wrote down the Zelph accounts or Joseph's own letter to his wife the next day. Their words stand as a solid testimony. And, while many have strayed from his words, my dad will never concede to the scholars who have wrested the words of Joseph Smith to fit the faulty, arm-of-the-flesh archeology of man. He knows that one day, it will be shown that Joseph was not just making things up. In Illinois, Zelph really was a white Lamanite fighting on "the plains of the Nephites" and that Joseph really was "recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity."
19 March 2010 at 11:10 pm
You're cheating now.
You're smuggling in outside context.
That's not what you were doing originally with Moroni. You were making a purely grammatical argument.
Do you want to start putting in context to Moroni's words now? Are we all ready to go that route?
Or are you going to start whining that context is one of them sneaky apologist tricks?
20 March 2010 at 12:13 am
The context always existed with Moroni's statement.
Imagine a person living in, relatively, rural New England. A place once populated by Native Americans before "the Gentiles" arrived. Especially for a people who believed in the Bible, they wanted to know where these dark skinned people could have come from. How could they be there if Adam and Eve started it all? Where did they branch off of that line?
The people were all-abuzz with this puzzle. Many believed that these dark-skinned people must have been a part of one of the lost tribes. People started writing about this hypothesis in books. It wasn't the first one, but Ethan Smith publishes a book in the Palmyra area in 1823. It tells of a group from the lost tribes of Israel that leave Israel, come to the Americas and begin to live. The group splits up into two peoples. One of them is civilized, the other is savage. The civilized portion builds large cities and fortifications and cultivates the land. They also keep a written language and a record of their people on plates. The savage portion turns to a life of hunting and ease. These two groups, due to rage and jealousy, fight often and, after years of wars and contentions, the more savage group eventually destroys the more civilized group. It is the savage group that remains when the Europeans arrive on this continent. (The similarities in this narrative are so astounding that B.H. Roberts later records, "One acquainted with Book of Mormon historical events will recognize in all this an outline of the Book of Mormon ‘history,’ what else there is would be merely detail.")
Speculations continue, but a large number of people seem to be convinced of the connection between the house of Israel and the "Indians" in their midst. In 1825, in the paper that Joseph Smith Sr. subscribed to at the time (the Wayne Sentinel), a Jewish minister is quoted as saying, "If the tribes could be brought together, could be made sensible of their origin, could be civilized, and restored to their long lost brethren, what joy to our people!" If only there was a way to unite the red-man with their white cousins.
Joseph joins in the speculation and intrigue. Lucy Mack Smith writes, "During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelling, and their animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them." It was truly an amazing time, the air charged with so many mysteries. Folk magic was big at the time, and while divining for money was against the law in Joseph's state, he did a little bit of it. He would tell of the most fantastical tales of cursed treasure buried by the Indians and guarded by their spirits. After years of this practice, he declares that gold bible would be coming forth (something some of his fellow treasure seekers would love to get their hands on). He comes out with it and later declares that an angel visited him in his room many years ago and told him that God had a work for him to do. "He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang." Finally! The New Englanders, and all people, would have their definitive answer about the origins of these dark skinned men. Now everyone would know that they were a once white and delightsome people that had come from the middle east.
20 March 2010 at 12:14 am
However, some of the white middle-easterners had become wicked and God caused a "cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; therefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey."
What a truly sad experience, that a beautiful, white, righteous people would become wicked and cause god to darken their skin… but don't worry! God has a way of fixing these idle people, because soon they will know of their origin ""And then shall the remnant of our seed know concerning us, how that we came out from Jerusalem, and that they are a descendant of the Jews. And the Gospel of Jesus Christ shall be declared among them; wherefore, they shall be restored unto the knowledge of their fathers, and also to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, which was had among their fathers. And then shall they rejoice, for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."
What glory, what rapture? God has been good. It is only a temporary cursing as long as the dark-skinned natives repent of their ways, just as some of their ancestors did after Jesus came down and visited them many years ago: "And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites."
22 March 2010 at 2:37 am
Where did Seth go?
'the former inhabitants of this continent'
I'm really confused as to how apologists can now say that the area of land being referred to is in Meso-America. Joseph said continent, that seems like a very large area. Reading through In Cognito's comments and remembering what little I have read elsewhere, I am having trouble understanding the mormon apologist view point. The plates were 'dug up' in the New York area? how far from meso- america?
I'm not well read in this area but I'm finding your argument, Seth, to be very unreasonable. It just doesn't add up.
22 March 2010 at 3:10 am
Incognito was obviously having a little personal therapy session, and I didn't want to intrude.
To answer your question Maureen –
The answer would be that Moroni simply went to New York and put them there.
People hike the Appalachian trail from Spring to Fall all the time. And that's just in a single hiking season. A man with a 60 lb. pack can cover 30 miles of rough ground in a single day if he's in shape. Not taking into account some sort of pack animal…
Yes. A hike from Guatemala (or somewhere around there) to upstate New York is not out of the question at all.
Especially considering that the Book of Mormon doesn't tell us when Moroni buried the plates. It could have been years later after the time he signs-off.
22 March 2010 at 3:21 am
By the way…
I don't really subscribe to any particular location for the Book of Mormon all that firmly.
I think the geographic scope was limited because that's what it explicitly says in the Book of Alma. We've got specific army march times from cities like Manti, Zarahemla, etc. and the river Sidon as well. Drawing up a basic map based on these march times and general directions gives you a fairly accurate idea of how large Nephite and Lamanite lands were. And it wasn't that big.
So that's settled, no matter what Joseph Smith or anyone else says about the matter.
But where was it?
Don't know, and I'm not terribly concerned about it.
The Meso-American model seems the most solid. But I'm open to models in South America, North America and elsewhere.
But I don't like the idea of trying to nail down the geography on grounds that are sketchy at best. That's why I've been disputing the point.
22 March 2010 at 3:32 am
Is the idea that: God directed Lehi and his family to the American continent, settled them in a special area set aside for them and then somehow kept them a secret from all the other inhabitants of the land? When Moroni travelled to New York wouldn't he have encountered many new and interesting civilisations that would have been noteworthy even on small plates that were for a spiritual record?
22 March 2010 at 4:00 am
You'll have to re-read what I was saying above.
I was saying that the most likely scenario is that Lehi and his family WERE NOT "kept secret" from the rest of the inhabitants.
Read Mike Ash's most recent installment in his "Mormon Times" series on the Book of Mormon. He postulates, and I agree, that when Lehi landed, they found the land already inhabited. Both Nephi's and Laman's factions soon merged with local Native Americans – who afterward became culturally dominated by the newcomers and took on their names.
There's a certain amount of chauvinism that dominates ancient record-keeping accounts. The Book of Mormon shows every sign of being the sort of record documenting the noble lineage of the king, or the equivalent.
Thus the Book of Mormon is only concerned with the lineage of Nephi – descendant of the line of Israel, heir to the blessings of Abraham, all that good stuff. It would have considered the other local population as important only insofar as they related to that blessed lineage.
This is, of course, quite self-centered thinking, and was typical of ancient records that tended to consider those not of the right bloodline to be not worth talking about. Even the Lamanites are only mentioned as a way to punish the Nephites – as if that was the only thing an entire human culture was good for.
The Nephites are not an 21st century ideal sort of people – even in their periods of recorded righteousness. They seem coldly indifferent to women, for one thing – considering them mere possessions. The Book of Mormon is even more coldly indifferent to the situation of women than the Bible is. At least you have stories featuring women in the Bible. Not in Nephite society. After mention of Sariah (Lehi's wife), you don't hear a word about any women of note – except when they are Lamanite women.
And the Book of Mormon doesn't give any indication of giving a damn about even the foreign people it does mention the Nephites encountering – the people of Zarahemla for instance. Once they are conquered by the royal Nephite line, they pretty much cease to exist in the record. Did you ever wonder why?
Well, this actually fits pretty well with ancient Mayan and Aztec historical records. They basically focus exclusively on the privileged bloodline and treat any outsiders as either subhuman, or not worth noting in the first place. Often the royal bloodline is associated with some narrative of divine favor from the gods.
Seen in this light, the absence of any other indigenous people in the kingly record of the Book of Mormon is not really surprising. In fact, if the book did go around cataloging the natives in the area, it would constitute an argument AGAINST its authenticity.
Ancient people typically didn't really give two straws about people outside their own group. The urge to carefully catalog different races and peoples is something more recent that dates back to the Renaissance/Enlightenment in large measure. Before then, people only talked about foreigners if they absolutely had to. Very self-centered that way, ancient people.
As for Moroni, he did note that he was constantly on the run from the Lamanites. Which is probably what he would have considered anyone else he encountered.
Also keep in mind that Moroni was not keeping a "dear diary." He was on the run for his life, treasuring the last sacred record of his people. I'm sure he considered it worth far more than any of his own personal affairs. The record of the Nephites was complete and ended as far as he was concerned. His own life was of no particular interest.
22 March 2010 at 4:28 am
Sorry I missed your pov about the secrecy of the Nephites/Lamanites.
I'm wondering now though about why the Nephites were not attacked by any other civilisation that the Lamanites (including Amalekites etc).Surely there would have been some noteworthy contact with other peoples.
Seen from my current point of view, the fact that women are next to non-existent in the BOM adds to my disgust for the man Joseph. I admit to being hugely biased against the BOM because of my anger over JS treatment of his own wife and women in general.
I'm also still a bit stuck on the claim in the 1981 BOM Intro that "The Lamanites are the principle ancestors of the American Indians" which was then changed in 2006 to "are among the ancestors of the American Indians". I know that you have a different pov on how prophets and revelations work but I don't understand why god would let such a major flaw go uncorrected for so long… especially since I believe that many people have been harmed over the years by incorrect doctrine. My idea of an interventionist god just wouldn't do that… that's why I don't believe in an interventionist God, too many children and other innocents are harmed… why the fuck would he help someone find a good parking space but not save a young child from harm. Off topic, sorry, needed to vent.
22 March 2010 at 4:36 am
I know that you are just trying to defend something that you think is good and wholesome, I am on the other end just feeling sick to my stomach about the atrocities carried out in the name of religion. (I include JS treatment of Emma as an atrocity).
22 March 2010 at 4:53 am
Actually, the complete lack of women in the Book of Mormon is evidence of Joseph Smith NOT writing the book himself and the book not being a 19th century product.
Generally speaking the 1800s was a hopelessly romantic time period. Everything in literature was about the love of a woman. Sappy romance stories were absolutely everywhere. Men tended to view women almost as angels.
Sure, it was very-much a dehumanizing putting-women-on-a-pedestal sort of view that would be seen as patronizing today, but it was anything but indifferent to women the way the Book of Mormon is. Women were romantic objects in the 1800s, objects of adoration, devotion, etc. But they weren't ignored or treated as mere property – like a nice horse.
Just sample a selection of letters from Civil War soldiers home. They are positively gushy with sloppy sentiment and flowery language about how wonderful the woman they are writing to is.
Joseph Smith's own letters to Emma display the same sort of gushy romanticism typical of the period.
The Book of Mormon doesn't romanticize women. It doesn't make them prizes to be won. It doesn't put them at the center of the male quest for being.
It just ignores them entirely.
This is an utterly alien view to 1800s America. No one thought this way about women in that time period – Joseph Smith included. Women were not something you ignored in the 19th century. And for them to be entirely absent from the Book of Mormon is yet another piece of evidence that we are certainly not dealing with a work of 19th century fiction here – and not something that Joseph Smith would have been likely to come up with on his own.
22 March 2010 at 4:55 am
However, it is very much the cultural view of the ancient Maya and Aztec toward women – for what that's worth.
22 March 2010 at 5:32 am
wow, when I first arced up about polygamy about 18 months ago, a number of people tried to tell me that in the 1800s romantic love just wasn't how things were done. This line of reasoning was used to explain how it really wasn't so very hurtful to add another wife into the marriage! hmm, I'm not blaming you here Seth, I have a feeling that you are quite correct about the romanticism of the 1800s and that the loons who tried to come up with the non-romantic excuse just have no clue how to sell a second or third wife option to me!! hehe.
Oh it's frustrating isn't it. How does JS tenderness in letters add up with his mistreatment of her? Did he actually respect women or was he a cad? I tend to lean to the latter and still believe that he wrote the BOM. I don't think that he held a favourable view of women at all, I think that the treatment of women in the BOM matches with the respect that JS gave to women in his own life.
22 March 2010 at 5:52 am
Well, obviously when you're talking about polygamy, you are talking about something rather alien to the romantic paradigm of the time period. This is why so many early Mormons struggled with the concept so much.
Brigham Young reported that when Joseph first approached him with the idea, he for the, first time in his life, wished he was dead. Others reported similar misgivings – the women just as much as the men. No one was really happy about it.
Neither does Joseph Smith himself appear to have been happy with the idea. I know you may disagree with this assessment based on your own conclusions. But that's how I read the historical account.
Most people who experienced early polygamy write about it being a sort of "Abrahamic trial" for them.
So I think it doesn't make too much sense to talk about polygamy as something within the romantic paradigm of the 1800s. The whole notion was alien to these people. And it would have been just as alien to Joseph Smith himself.
However, it does appear that Joseph Smith himself held back a bit in his marriages. We have been unable to find any evidence any sexual relations with anyone but Emma for example.
This is where the theory that many of Joseph's marriages were "dynastic" in nature comes from. This theory posits that Joseph believed that ties of marriage were a way of eternally sealing righteous families together in heaven – and that families could gain additional blessings by being unified with a righteous man in the church.
This kind of fits with some other things I've heard. For instance, my great grandmother died at the age of 103 in the mid 1990s. She'd been born near the turn of the century right soon after polygamy had been abandoned officially. But a few remnants stuck around.
For instance, it was apparently common practice in Utah if a girl died before getting married, she would be posthumously sealed to the local bishop. I remember my grandmother telling about how she got pneumonia at age 10 (a life-threatening thing back then) and told her mother on her sick bed "if I die, don't marry me to that bishop." She didn't much care for him.
Thing is, this obviously wasn't going to be a romantic thing. Obviously, the motivation was a concern for the state of things in the afterlife.
This is probably where the argument that Joseph's marriages were not romantic comes from.
For myself, I think it's plausible that many of them were not particularly romantic. Possibly as a way for Joseph to insulate himself from the emotional discomfort of the situation.
But I think it at least likely that there was some affection in at least a few of the marriages. Eliza Roxy Snow, for instance, spoke later in life quite affectionately of her husband Joseph Smith.
I'm open to a lot of ideas on this subject.
I do think that if the faithful Mormon view is true and Joseph Smith was, in fact, ORDERED by God to take additional wives, he would have had a hard time doing it without a lot of emotional complications and mess.
I know I would have made a hash of it anyway.
23 March 2010 at 6:23 am
Getting back to the "town" and stop light analogy:
The problem is the town was setup to trick the folks in never leaving with lies and deception. Yes, many that live there are happy – but is a lie.
People start to see some truth on the horizon when they reach one end of town. So the city planners decide to place confusing traffic light that redirects drivers back into town when they are heading that way.
People that have left see this happen and think it wrong and manipulative. They want to bring this to the attention of the townfolk.
They the keepers announce, "you don't live here anymore"
23 March 2010 at 6:51 am
Correcting incorrect scriptural and ideological thinking within the Church is hardly comparable to misdirecting people back into town as some sort of devious trap.
If the town adds a new improved playground, do you accuse them of simply deceiving people, and "luring them in" by making the town a better place?
Do you even realize how unhinged that kind of thinking sounds?
What? We're supposed to remain in some sort of stasis chamber of how you remember (or mis-remember) the Church just to make it easier for you to dislike us?
23 March 2010 at 4:07 pm
How one thinks about the new traffic light is going to be determined by ones perception of the Book of Mormon.
The question really is: the the BOM historical?
Honest people (with all their hinges working fine) have come to different conclusions. If this book is not historical the arguing about the internals is moot. Is is my opinion that there is an amazing amount of conflicts with observed information. This information has come from every branch of science. B.H. Roberts (a man with really good hinges) covered some of the problems back in his day in "Studies of the Book of Mormon".
I am respectful of the difficulty of perceiving the external world accurately. We are all struggling with this every moment of our lives. And we should always be humble and respectful to each other – we truly are stumbling through a world we see very little of. I have no problem with the people in the town – God bless them. We all live in our own version of it – it is our iron rod.
There are versions of this town that fundamentalist Joesph Smith followers are continuing to observe the principle of plural marriage. They may very well be sincere in their beliefs. The folks in these towns have restricted information and the information is distorted for the interests of the sect in order to maintain control. It is the same for any cult.
After thinking about it, IMO this is not what Mr. Ash is doing. A cult does not need to bother with apologists. He is not deceiving with lies. He is doing his best to deflect and toss out things that are complicating the harmony in the streets of the town. He is obviously a capable and intelligent person (as are you) volunteering to help in a very big task. The the town looks different if you agree with him. The statues of the prophets just got a little smaller (probably a good thing). The BOM people look more like a couple of dominant clans amongst a large group of natives. Change can be uncomfortable. If after reading Harry Potter and loving it, suddenly it was revealed by the author that Harry is actually a girl – that would make people uncomfortable. Some would be upset, then the greatest fans of the author would jump up and declare – where did it say that Harry had a penis? Harry had a girlfriend? Harry was obviously a lesbian!
The existence of apologists is a good sign for the church. It shows the willingness to have a dialog. It's great that Mr. Ash (and you) are stimulating discussions like this. Maybe I'll bring it to my next lesson in class…no that probably would not be a good idea.
23 March 2010 at 4:38 pm
For some reason, B.H Roberts's much-outdated, unsystematic and incomplete analysis of the BoM represents the forefront of BoM research for many critics (like Ubik).
It's pretty clear whose self-interests are being served there; it reminds me of fundamentalists using outdated science textbooks to challenge the currently-accepted age of the earth in the guise of "creation science."
23 March 2010 at 4:39 pm
Correction: "for many critics (*and* Ubik)" (so as to forgo the direct judgment of motive or position on Ubik's part).
23 March 2010 at 4:47 pm
Sounds good to me.
As far as Sunday School class… I've found the main problems come when I try to force my paradigm on other people. It tends to get people's back up, and interferes with the comfortable fellowship that most people go to church for.
If I want to debate theology, I can do that online.
23 March 2010 at 6:33 pm
B.H. Roberts obviously does not represent the forefront of BOM research or the current scientific research. I actually said, "…covered some of the problems back in his day…"
It does represent a study of the subject by a sincere, smart and honest human being struggling with BOM issues (and I mentioned it in this context).
23 March 2010 at 6:48 pm
Thanks for the clarification and sorry for the confusion, Ubik!
23 March 2010 at 7:04 pm
Amen Brother!
I used to think that the reality gap between the BOM and what is known is a good thing. It makes the faith required greater and if it was provable then faith would not be needed. It occurred to me that faith in the book itself (that it is historical) should not be required. The book should reflect historic reality (at least somewhat) – if it reflects real events. Faith should be only required for believing in the principles described in the book. The Bible reflects real events (somewhat) and still faith is required be believe in Christ (or God).
23 March 2010 at 7:42 pm
I've been arguing for a long time now that the idea of "proving" God's existence such that everyone has to accept him on the public evidence is an issue without much real importance to the debate about what religion means to society and whether it's worthwhile.
23 March 2010 at 8:06 pm
Agreed. I would be comfortable if the church came out and said, "The BOM is not required to be historical. It is a spiritual story. Don't try to relate it to our external world. It reflects a spiritual existence in the mind of God and the spiritual truths from it are derived from that source. Love God, love your neighbour – the rest is detail."
All this conflict/debate would evaporate.
23 March 2010 at 8:51 pm
That assumes the BoM is not historical, though. Radically altering the "keystone" of the religion might have bad side effects on the superstructure.
23 March 2010 at 9:16 pm
It would create some problems. It would take some of the wind out of the sails of the church but it would unburden it.
In the case of polygamy, blacks in the priesthood and temple ceremony the changes probably came as a relief to many if not most members.
The BOM problems have not yet reached this level – but it might over time. The youth (especially pre-mission) seem affected more – due to the ease this information can be accessed (BOM issuses are debated on youtube and other social networking sites).
23 March 2010 at 9:28 pm
I don't see a good reason to abandon belief in its historicity given the current state of evidence for plausibility compared to evidence against. It seems to me the suggestion to disregard its historicity would appeal only to those who already disbelieve. (How far should we take it, as well? What parts of the New Testament do we need to make into useful fictions?)
15 April 2010 at 2:13 pm
Phew! So as I was reading/skimming through that, a lot of thoughts/comments came to me, but I'll leave that to Daniel. I think I can sum up my feelings with the following statement "Who put the carrot up Seth R's a**?" seriously, get defensive (read aggressive) much?? And as for Mike, don't you get dizzy from all that spinning in circles??
4 May 2010 at 4:48 pm
Just read all the comments… whew.
"It doesn't explain away, however, the spiritual witness received by millions of people who speak to God themselves (and He speaks back) to let them know they are prophets."
The number of people that believe in something is irrelevant. Just because Mormons only make up .1 to .2% of the world's population doesn't mean the LDS church is false because hardly anybody believes in it.
The spiritual witness is too dubious and subjective to count as good evidence. Most all religions claim spiritual witnesses to back their claims. How do you know it's the spirit and not just confirmation/affirmation bias that leads to an emotional experience?
"New Atheism: The new fundamentalism."
I think the reason why fundamentalists are considered fundamentalists is because they are not open to new evidence that could disagree with current beliefs (beliefs that are not supported by evidence). Atheism is open to evidence, scrutiny, and criticism. Any conclusion that does not follow the scientific method or is supported by sound evidence should be rejected. This is why atheists seem arrogant. What is really arrogant is people saying that they know something when they really don't.
4 May 2010 at 9:16 pm
If we're in a war about who is more arrogant, my vote goes for the guy who tells other people what they can and can't know. Christopher wins. 🙂
5 May 2010 at 4:34 am
Not can't, BH — don't.
Words mean things. If someone has no evidence for something, then no, they do not 'know' that thing, and it's not arrogant to point that out.
They can think it, they can surmise, guess, postulate, opine, submit… but they do not have any basis for saying that they know it. Knowledge only comes with empirical evidence. Science 101.
It's not your fault. Mormons use the word 'I know' to mean 'I believe really hard', so no wonder you're confused.
5 May 2010 at 5:39 am
Wow, thanks for taking it upon yourself to speak on behalf of millions of people you've never met. Well done.
5 May 2010 at 6:34 am
Admit your epistemological blunder, BH, and move on.
5 May 2010 at 2:38 pm
Admit your epistemological hubris, D, and move on.
5 May 2010 at 9:42 pm
Fundamentalism is more than just a refusal to view the evidence.
It is taking a dogmatic position (and aggressively pushing it on others) based on a caricatured and overly-simplistic set of presumptions or facts.
In this sense, Hitchens qualifies in spades.
5 May 2010 at 10:00 pm
And he ain't the only one…
😉
5 May 2010 at 11:48 pm
Words don't just mean anything you want at the time, guys.
Here, maybe this will help you, and other Mormons out there (including Mike Ash).
fundamentalist
Lamanite
know
true
6 May 2010 at 3:58 am
Here you go, Daniel. Study up.
http://plato.stanford.edu/
6 May 2010 at 4:18 am
Cool, thanks.
6 May 2010 at 10:07 pm
I suppose I just don't understand how you can know something without good evidence. Why do you assume that a spiritual experience/feeling is a direct result of the Spirit?
(Please don't use an argument like "well you can't prove that God doesn't exist").
6 May 2010 at 10:32 pm
Seth, I agree that I defined Fundamentalism a little too narrowly. But I think you define it a little too broadly.
I also, agree that technically atheists can't absolutely say there is no God. There could be a God. But I don't think Atheism has an official doctrine, I mean, stance on this. So we are merely speaking as men/women. The best we can say is that based on the evidence that we can observe, the probability that there is a God is so low, it is safe to say there is none.
I think certain positions appear to be dogmatic but in reality they aren't. The distinction would be if the position is supported by good empirical evidence.
Some flat-earthers say the same thing as you do.
Now you are going to say this is a bad analogy because you have evidence for Mormonism, etc. Firstly, I think the evidence isn't good enough. Secondly, from my point of view, a large portion of an LDS testimony is the Spirit. Do you have good empirical evidence that a spiritual experience is a direct result from the Spirit? Have you looked at alternate ideas about sources of spiritual experiences? Why do you assume their position is correct and the ones proposed by scientists are wrong?
6 May 2010 at 10:36 pm
I'm positive Chris shares some beliefs with flat-earthers. I'd wager they believe that water is required to keep a human alive. Chris also believes this. Thus, Chris is like a flat-earther.
…
6 May 2010 at 10:45 pm
BHodges, I understand the fallacy you are trying to pin on my argument but that's not what I'm doing here. What I was trying to point out with this example is that some flat-earthers say that round-earthers are just as dogmatic and fundamental. However, we know that the earth is round because of evidence. This is why the flat-earthers are wrong in saying round-earthers are fundamentalist. This is why Seth is wrong in saying that atheists are fundamentalists.
6 May 2010 at 10:50 pm
If you were to observe an argument between a flat-earther and a round-earther, who would you say was the fundamentalist and why?
6 May 2010 at 11:38 pm
Chris, the scientific explanations for spiritual experience say nothing about whether they are valid experiences of God or not. Even if you can locate the chemical reaction involved, so what then?
What have you really said about "why"?
7 May 2010 at 12:20 am
Seth, you have Occam's Razor exactly backwards.
If we can explain 'spiritual feelings' by examining brain chemistry, then it means we can explain spiritual feelings by examining brain chemistry. No other supernatural explanation is required.
Here's how it works. You believe things when there is an adequate evidentiary basis for them. It takes evidence to establish a proposition, and the more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence it takes.
You're doing it the opposite way: You believe what you want, as long as it's not specifically excluded by enough evidence. And the more deeply held the claim, the more evidence it takes to disabuse you of it. But your claims are often not falsifiable. Which means that if you're devoted to an idea, you'll never find enough evidence to drop it. And you're not looking for that anyway. So people can bring you alternate explanations and evidence that refutes your view all day long, and it won't change your mind because it'll never disconfirm your view 100%, and you'll stay hunkered down in your faith bunker, saying "I'm still right."
This is exactly what Mike Ash does: when confronted with evidence that refutes his claims, he finds a semantic loophole and says, "See? I could still be right."
If brain chemistry experiments don't knock out a god entirely, they do even less to establish a god.
7 May 2010 at 1:44 am
Hm, I was thinking on the bus, and my analogy isn't quite the analogy I wanted to make because atheism isn't a worldview. It would be flat-earthers vs. aflat-earthers (people who don't believe the earth is flat). So it's not a good analogy, sorry about that.
I can see how somebody can be dogmatic on a position. But I don't see how you can be dogmatic on a non-position. Atheism is a non-position. Aflat-earthism is a non-position. ASanta Clausism is a non-position. I do understand how you think atheists come across as having the attributes of being dogmatic since many do say that seemingly dogmatic statement: "God doesn't exist." I think what atheists should say is something like: "I disagree with the method that you came to your conclusion. It is built on subject experience, bad evidence and speculation. Because the method you take is faulty, by default I must reject your conclusion."
Attacking another's conclusion with an opposing idea seems dogmatic. But this isn't just the opinion of atheism that God doesn't exist. We're skeptical of your methods and reasons and claiming that they are faulty and don't necessarily lead to the position that God does exist.
Or maybe I just don't understand what fundamentalism is. Perhaps you could provide me with an example of how atheists are dogmatic and fundamentalist.
Seth, I'm a little confused regarding your 7 May 2010 7:38 AM response. So the Spirit may cause chemical reactions. Why do you assume even chemical reactions are directly from the Spirit?
Also, you may want to check out some other reasoning as to why people receive spiritual experiences: e.g. confirmation bias.
Sure I can't absolutely disprove your claim that feelings come from the Spirit. But why would anyone assume they do? Is the number of believers valid reasoning? Are fruits of the Spirit valid reasoning? What about contradictory spiritual experiences? What about opposing religions that bear an equal amount of good fruit?
7 May 2010 at 2:05 am
Chris – atheism asserts something.
Which makes it – by-definition – a position.
There is no such thing as a "non-position." Unless you keep your mouth shut and don't say anything at all.
Atheism asserts something non-provable – that there is no God.
This means it IS actually a belief system. A set of ideas that cannot be proven.
And Daniel, you are making a big assumption here – that the non-existence of God (or some divine being) is less likely than unlikely.
How exactly did you arrive at that conclusion?
From where I'm sitting – they both appear equally likely.
7 May 2010 at 2:13 am
New Atheists (if I can say that) do not make the claim that gods do not exist. We're saying that theists haven't established the god claim, so we don't believe it.
This means it IS actually a belief system. A set of ideas that cannot be proven.
No, it's a reaction to the claims of theists.
It's true that you can find dictionary definitions of atheism as 'the denial of gods'. That's a definition in common parlance, it's what many people think atheists think, but I do not find atheists that think this. I certainly would not make that claim because I don't have evidence for it.
7 May 2010 at 2:15 am
What does likeliness have to do with it?
I'm just pointing out your fallacious reasoning.
7 May 2010 at 5:20 am
Yes perhaps "non-position" wasn't a good word to use. Daniel articulated it a bit better than I did. It's a common misconception that atheism is a belief system. Atheism doesn't say "I believe there is no God." It says "I don't believe there is a God." There is an important difference.
I think you are right that belief systems are equally valid or invalid. Why is one opinion more or less true than someone else's? However, you get in trouble in labeling certain viewpoints as belief systems. People who are not convinced in water dowsing do not belong to the belief system of AWater Dowsingism. They are just not convinced that water dowsing works. The burden of providing good evidence relies on the water dowsers. They have yet to do such. Therefore, the "non believers" do not accept their claims.
The main reason why I am not convinced to believe in a God is because of the methodology used to claim he exists. I simply cannot accept the method(s) (that I know of) in which it is proposed that one should undergo to believe in a God. The scientific method is the only method that I find reasonable enough to use to explain reality. Sometimes this leads me to say "I don't know" to various things.
7 May 2010 at 1:37 pm
Chris, that would be true if atheism was not as evangelistic as it is these days. Note I didn't start out with just atheism per se – but rather the "new atheism." The stuff of Hitchens and company.
Ad campaigns, active efforts to get non-religious or anti-religious ideas out there and public, active ridicule and condemnation of the theistic worldview…
No one who is being quite that aggressive with a "non-belief" system can claim that he's not actively pushing a belief paradigm.
I had one new atheist brag to me once that unlike before, now atheists are "out and proud."
"Out and proud" of what?
If atheism is really just a non-belief system, then what's there to be "proud" of?
And you hint at it yourself. You forward the scientific method as the best explanation for the universe.
Is not that an active belief? Do you believe that the scientific method is truly capable of explaining things like why we exist, what the purpose of the universe is, and what the foundation of ethics and morality is?
If people do believe the scientific method is capable of shedding much light on these topics, isn't that really just a "faith" position, in the end?
7 May 2010 at 1:57 pm
I write my blog because I am mad at being deceived by the Mormon church for 30+ years. I don't want to push my new beliefs on anyone but I do want to have a dialogue with other like minded people. Blogging offers that.
I think that many atheists want to be heard because religious people don't keep their beliefs to themselves.
Prop 8 was a big turning point for me. If religions are going to continue to get more and more political then I think that there needs to be some balance in there. There needs to be a voice saying "hey, not all of us believe in god… let's remember that when we make new laws and write school curriculums".
7 May 2010 at 2:05 pm
You guys! We're being too vocal! That means our position is invalid!
Thank goodness we have Seth here to tell us how to behave, and to explain the epistemic ramifications of not shutting up like they did in the old days.
And that's comment 200 on this thread. I bet half of the comments are from Seth. Hey, Seth, how come your position is still valid even when you don't shut up?
7 May 2010 at 2:07 pm
Yes Maureen, but what are you advocating instead as a replacement for those positions you object to, and why?
7 May 2010 at 2:16 pm
I really don't want to advocate any replacement beliefs for the mess that is Mormonism (IMO as always).
My blog is my tool/key to finding a new way. I feel quite wary about grasping hold of anything too tightly at this stage.
7 May 2010 at 2:23 pm
I guess. But eventually you're going to have to find some reason for the positions you take.
7 May 2010 at 2:32 pm
What can I tell you, it feels great to to make my own decisions about my life and my passions and beliefs and not worry about what god might think. I love it. I really don't want to add any new 'set of beliefs' to my life. I want to read, read, read, love, love, love and live, live, live 🙂
7 May 2010 at 2:46 pm
Fair enough. But I should also note I already feel like I am doing that within my own faith context.
7 May 2010 at 2:51 pm
Perfect. Now can we just let everyone else live their best lives also. The Mormon church's involvement in Prop 8 was disgusting. To build a society that values equality for all it would seem to me that we may need to leave god and antiquated ideas on marriage out of the equation.
7 May 2010 at 3:14 pm
I do agree that new atheists sometimes do come across as dogmatic and religious. But I don't think that the manner in which somebody touts their thoughts automatically makes them religious or dogmatic. If I lived in a geocentrist society and I was an ageocentrist and I yelled at the top of my lungs, "You don't have good enough evidence to support your claims! Geocentrism shouldn't automatically be assumed to be correct!" I'm not subscribing to a belief system because I emphatically make this statement.
Atheism and theism are not equally valid. The burden of providing good evidence rests entirely with the supernaturalists. There is no similar requirement for atheists.
"An atheist is simply a person who has considered [the God] claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn’t have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: 'I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.'" -Sam Harris
I don't think the scientific method can be used to explain most of those things (in the manner in which you state them – why we exist, purpose of universe). So no. There are many things we must say "I don't know" and then continue our quest for good evidence. I don't know the cause of the origins of the universe. This doesn't mean I should automatically assume that there is a supernatural explanation.
7 May 2010 at 3:24 pm
Maureen, homosexuals have been persecuted and even killed for reasons that had nothing to do with God or the Bible.
So I wouldn't really lay Prop 8 at the feet of "religion" per se. It had religious themes and aspects. Likewise, Mao's "Cultural Revolution" had some real heavy atheist themes and aspects. But it's probably a bit unfair to blame atheism entirely for the Cultural Revolution.
Just realize that there are perfectly valid RELIGIOUS arguments for and against the whole Prop 8 thing. Just like people felt they had perfectly valid non-religious arguments for and against.
Religion, like atheism, like any human idea – can be used for both good and evil. But the good and evil is not always inherent in the ideas themselves.
7 May 2010 at 3:29 pm
"The burden of providing good evidence rests entirely with the supernaturalists. There is no similar requirement for atheists."
Chris, this would only be a valid statement if the atheists were not publicly trying to push a conclusion.
Since atheists these days ARE trying to publicly push a conclusion, this statement simply doesn't work.
If you want to simply passively not agree with the idea of God – fine.
But if you want to go online and advocate for your position, it's a whole different ball game.
Your burden of proof.
And I should point out that modern online atheism is doing a lot more than simply pointing out that religious people have not proved God. I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about Chris.
7 May 2010 at 3:49 pm
I'm not sure that I see how discussing ideas online can be viewed as 'publicly trying to push a conclusion'. Everyone chooses what they want to read online and if they don't like what they read they can move on.
Religions however seem to be seeking more and more involvement in the laws of the land.
I don't mean to blame religion entirely for the Prop 8 debacle but I am sickened by their involvement. Citizens had a right to be heard, by their vote. Religions should have had nothing to do with it.
7 May 2010 at 3:53 pm
Maureen, I disagreed with the LDS Church's stance on Prop 8 from day one.
That said however, I'm not sure I agree with your claim that religious organizations should not be allowed to participate in the law making process.
In the end, a religion – for political purposes – is a group of free individuals banding together to promote a shared political viewpoint more effectively.
Is that really something we want to discourage?
7 May 2010 at 4:00 pm
Glad to hear you were just as concerned with the LDS stance regarding Prop 8.
I don't like religions participating in the law making process because the leaders of these religions make decisions for all of their members en masse as though everyone would agree with the leaders. As we have already discovered both you and I were in disagreement with the LDS position (I'm guessing you are an active LDS?) so the church was taking action on our behalf, action that we did not agree with and were fairly powerless to counteract.
There are some well informed religious people but there are also plenty of 'sheep' whose numbers can be used by the leaders of religions to push their agendas.
7 May 2010 at 4:05 pm
Not all Democrats agree with the actions of the Democratic Party leadership either. And rank and file Democrats can act pretty "sheep-like."
Should we discourage the participation of the Democratic Party in the political process? Or the GOP?
7 May 2010 at 4:11 pm
They might act sheep-like but they have the opportunity to influence the leaders of their party. Religious leaders do not accept much/any? suggestions from the rank and file.
7 May 2010 at 4:15 pm
On the contrary Maureen.
As a Mormon, and as a registered member of the Democratic Party, I feel I have equal influence over both organizations.
7 May 2010 at 4:17 pm
I have trouble with your line of thinking because I can say that all sorts of conclusion-deniers (people who take the a-whatever position) have the burden of proof (I prefer to say burden of providing good evidence).
I also disagree with the way you use the word "position" when you say "But if you want to go online and advocate for your position, it's a whole different ball game."
I think it's important to note how one has come to that position. Not all positions are equal. I realize that the atheist position comes across as equally dogmatic (opinionated) as the theist's one. However, it's important to note that the theist position is based on the assumption that faith is a reasonable avenue to take to know things. Why do you assume that it's the Spirit that gave you those peaceful, warm feelings?
Hmm… now that I'm starting to articulate my thoughts more I think you are right in saying we do have burden of proof. HOWEVER, the position for which there is a required burden of proof isn't "God doesn't exist." It's something else.
The atheist position posits that the method the theist took to arrive at their conclusion is faulty. We have plenty of good evidence to suggest that this is so. And so by default we claim that the theist conclusion doesn't logically follow.
So the burden of proof resides on our position that your method-to-know-God is faulty. We have illustrated this, ergo..
I'd like to say that I'm open to peer review from fellow atheists if they are so inclined. Thank you Seth for this discussion. I have never really participated in much debate and occasionally I do realize things about my side of the argument in mid-discussion.
7 May 2010 at 4:24 pm
You must be pretty special at church then (and I really don't mean that sarcastically or anything, damn I'm tired, I'll go to bed after this one).
I felt as though I had very little opportunity to affect change at church. It felt to me as thought the organisation made changes at a snails pace.
In a political sphere you could gather signatures etc and lobby your leaders. At church you would most likely be told "that is just the way we do things" or "we've prayed about it and god says to do it this way".
7 May 2010 at 4:33 pm
I'm not particularly special. The "highest" calling I ever had was 2nd counselor in the Elders Quorum presidency. I also had a position of Executive Secretary at one point.
So maybe I had a bit more influence than some. But that's the same for political parties. My mom attends GOP caucuses in Utah and actually had a good deal of say in local Utah County politics. Not much, but more than your average Joe on the streets. The more you participate, the more you are invested in the organization, the more clout you have. Same is true for the LDS Church.
And there are undeniably marginalized groups within both the organizations. For instance, some women feel they have less say in the LDS Church. Likewise, there are marginalized groups within the ambit of the Democratic Party.
And the signature drives, the angry phone calls, mostly those just work for local politicians. They don't do much to impact Democratic National HQ.
And a person's influence over even Congressmen is very marginal. The elections you have the biggest impact in are actually at the city and county level.
But likewise, if you know how to do it, you can have almost as much impact over a bishop or stake president.
Look, I don't pretend that my influence with the LDS Church is all that great. It isn't. It's highly marginal. I'm just one more guy among thousands with a small voice.
But I feel my influence over the Democratic Party is JUST as marginal.
P.S. Thanks for the comments Chris. I'll have to think on them.
8 May 2010 at 1:31 am
"In the end, a religion – for political purposes – is a group of free individuals banding together to promote a shared political viewpoint more effectively."
I disagree. On your use of the word 'free'. I hav met many many pople who follwed a (usually their families) religion without bing given a fair chance to resist. And then they were brainwashed by it. Ask anyone who has been brainwashed, it's not exactly a free-thinking state of mind.
I like your arguments Chris. I remember as I was growing up continually being asked my religion, and answering "Nothing". That answer apparently wasn't good enough, nor was "I don't believe in a god" so I was pressured (by religious people) to label my "position/non-position" as Atheist. Now ever since it has a label, I have a burden of proof? I might go back to the unexplainable position og "Nothing."
8 May 2010 at 1:40 am
"Seth R. I guess. But eventually you're going to have to find some reason for the positions you take."
Don't you mean 'Label'?
In my experience it makes religious people (all denominations) uncomfortable when someone choses not to label themselves as any particular faith(see above comment). That's why they have hi-jacked the term 'Atheist' and assigned the definiton that an atheist is someone who believes there is no god/ an atheist is someone who believes in science.
When Chris says a-whatever it can be directly liked to the title been forced on non-believers- Check it Seth A-theism. Therefore a-theism is simply not believing in the claims of theists. No burden of proof. Duh.
Now might be a good time to explain why Atheist is spelt 'incorrectly' in my handle. That is my little way of keeping myself separate from a group of people who have a particular set of beliefs (doctrine)- because that is exactly what I am avoiding.
8 May 2010 at 2:14 am
I have found another blogger who calls themselves a Nontheist-tell me Seth R, does a nontheist have burden of proof?
8 May 2010 at 2:16 am
Same coercion and brainwashing happen in political systems that have nothing to do with religion.
As for the whole "we just disagree there is a God" – I've met few online atheists who were content to simply leave it at that. Usually they try to take it one step further and assert that belief in God is either unreasonable or the sign of a damaged individual – something they DO have the burden of proof on.
Again, what was the atheist I encountered "out and proud" about?
8 May 2010 at 2:26 am
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. – Christopher Hitchens
You are painting all Atheists with the same dogmatic brush- because where you come from (church)all people of the same religion/label have the same thoughts.
8 May 2010 at 2:31 am
We should discuss this over ice cream. I'll have chocolate, and Seth, you can have a flavour called 'none'. 'Cause no ice cream is ice cream, too, right?
And then you can tell me all about your hobby of not collecting stamps.
8 May 2010 at 2:47 am
Count me in! I'll have choc mint please!
Would you like some a-sprinkles on yours Seth R?
8 May 2010 at 2:57 am
I’m a polyatheist – there are many gods I don’t believe in. – Dan Fouts
We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. – Richard Dawkins
Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for Atheism ever conceived. – Isaac Asimov (I think that goes for the BoM too)
For you Maureen-Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-o, and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have. – Penn Jillette
for a more complete list go to: http://www.bspcn.com/2008/08/25/101-atheist-quotes/
8 May 2010 at 3:13 am
Actually, Penn Jillette is a really good example of what we're talking about. Notice how he says "Believing there is no god". Like, he doesn't just not believe in a god. He believes in 'no god'.
And he clarifies:
I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy — you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do.
Seth — he's taking exactly the stand you're (I think rightly) objecting to. I wouldn't take this view. I don't think he has the evidence for it. But even he agrees that this is beyond atheism.
He defends this view on the grounds that 'god' is not a well-defined concept:
You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?
8 May 2010 at 3:40 am
ah, but that is the secret-by not defining god, how are the enemy (atheists) ever suppose to prove it doesn't exist? Gives atheists an impossible 'burden of proof'. Which religious ppl take to men that because it can never be proved that God doesn't exist, then he must exist.
I doubt anyone an prove Harry Potter doesn't exist either, so then he must???
8 May 2010 at 3:46 am
steady on Daniel- you'llbe accsed of being an agnostic shortly 😉
8 May 2010 at 3:49 am
Neither of you have really been paying any attention to what I've been saying. All you were doing was waiting to throw out some pet one-liners.
But they don't apply to what I was saying.
I was not trying to prove God to you, in case you didn't notice. So your comments about "Harry Potter" and such are irrelevant here.
As for the following quote:
"You are painting all Atheists with the same dogmatic brush- because where you come from (church)all people of the same religion/label have the same thoughts."
Does anyone else here see the self-contradiction? I'll give you a couple guesses and then spell it out if you still don't get it.
8 May 2010 at 3:58 am
sorry I didn;t write that very well.
What I meant was, that when one belongs to a church/religion, that religion usually has some rules(dotrine) about what it's members should think about certain topics-like abortion, polygamy, female genital mutilation etc. So according to the church "all our members believe abortion is murder. Anyone who believes differently is not a real christian"- just an example, obviously.
And because some ppl view atheism as a belief system (lke your none flavoured icecream)they believe we must all think he same things.
I wasn't trying to say all mormons or christians or anti-atheists are the same, I was trying to say that because religious ppl all think he same things (because they are forced/brainwashed to) they assume atheists too.
Not sure if that will clear anything up but I hope it helps.
8 May 2010 at 4:10 am
Seth, you say atheists have a burden of proof.
I'll play the game- you prove to me that Buddha doesn't exist and I'll use your methodology to prove God doesn't exist.
Fair?
8 May 2010 at 4:47 am
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification on that.
I have no interest in proving Buddha doesn't exist, because I find it entirely plausible that such a historical figure did exist. Just as plausible as Moses existing. I can even dig him being a legitimate messenger from God actually. Same for Muhammad, or the Dali Lama.
8 May 2010 at 2:31 pm
If you can show a sufficient good amount of evidence (and prove) that the method one uses to come to a conclusion is illogical and/or faulty, then logically the conclusion must also be illogical and/or false.
So if a skeptic who is studying water dowsing illustrates this and says that "Water Dowsers don't exist," they don't subscribe to a belief system (aWater Dowsingism?). It's simply the default position if it is shown that water dowsing doesn't work. (Kind of a weird example. So let me explain a little more…)
Atheism (or any other skeptical line of thought) shouldn't say "God doesn't exist" before analyzing the method in which supernaturalists use to draw their conclusions.
A skeptic should first take the stance, "Well maybe it's true or not. Let's take a look at how they draw this conclusion. Is their evidence good enough? Do they rely on bad assumptions? Etc." The skeptic then does his work and makes the position, "Their methods and evidences are bad and do not necessarily lead to their conclusion." This is our position. We have provided good evidence for it. The default a-conclusion automatically arises by default because we do not need to announce it. If we do proclaim it, we are simply pointing to it's existence as a result of our showing that the methods and evidences used to support the original conclusion are bad.
So atheists (and other skeptics) can be dogmatic if they use this approach backwards. One should not say that Water Dowsers are mistaken without first showing that the methods to determine water dowsing works to be false.
a-Whateverism is not a religion.
9 May 2010 at 12:51 am
So Chris,
If I claim that 2+2=4 because my dad said it is true, and everything my dad says is always true, then 2+2 does NOT equal 4?
Because I've just reached a conclusion based on faulty reasoning. Therefore, under your assertion, the conclusion must be false.
9 May 2010 at 2:30 am
No, Seth, that's the point. The person is irrelevant. What matters is the evidence for the issue.
Look, Chris is doing a great job of explaining how one goes about establishing a proposition using critical thinking and evidence. He's bringing it to you, and you're not having any. You could be learning a lot from this, but you're not. I wonder if you're not being willfully obtuse.
If you do want to find out more about this, I suggest 'Becoming a Critical Thinker' by Robert Carroll. There's not much we can do for you if you're not going to try.
9 May 2010 at 3:16 am
Chris, I have not really been addressing atheism per se. Nor am I trying to claim it is an unreasonable position. Other religious folks may do that, but I'm not really interested.
Nor am I interested in proving that God exists by some scientific set of proofs (like "Intelligent Design"), or set of logical proofs (like "Kalam Infinity"). I consider such proofs for God to be just as faulty as you do.
My religious convictions rest almost solely upon whether they provide me with a world-view that works. And that's about it. My religious worldview works. It provides a powerful ethical, spiritual, and experiential paradigm that fits well with other data provided by the "hard sciences."
I know a lot of atheists think that every religious person is some smug deluded person who thinks he's got some proof for God that settles the matter.
That's not me. I think Kalam Infinity is actually an utterly insufficient proof for God for example. I think the Intelligent Design movement is largely irrelevant and silly. I don't go around claiming I've got the definitive proof to force everyone to acknowledge God.
In fact, part of my belief system is that God is, by-definition, BEYOND such proofs anyway. Science simply has nothing to say about whether God exists – one way or the other.
I view atheist demands for scientific proof of God to be rather like rejecting poetry because it doesn't have a testable hypothesis.
In fact, the refusal of certain brands of atheism to embrace anything that does not have a testable hypothesis is probably one of the reasons I consider them so dreary and unappealing. They obsess about only a small slice of the human experience.
So let's be clear here – I'm not here to "prove" God. That has not been my aim here from post number one. So I'd appreciate it if people would stop acting like that's the only reason I came over here.
Now, atheism as you have described it – mere skepticism of something that has not been established – I don't have a problem with. If that's your position, that's largely fine by me. I'm not like other religious people who feel threatened by the lack of scientific data for God. If atheists were willing to simply leave things there, I'd have no problem.
But the problem is that atheists these days are NOT just leaving it there. They are going on the offensive and trying to establish the thesis that religious people are in some way defective because they believe in God (a thesis Daniel obviously believes – judging from the tone of his comment before this one).
That is going far beyond merely rejecting the idea of God because it hasn't been established by proof you accept. This is also not a non-position.
"Religious people are defective" is NOT a non-position.
"Religious people are inherently more prone to violence and bigotry" is NOT a non-position.
Yet those propositions are foundational pillars of the writings of Dawkins and Hitchens. They are the battle cry of the "new atheism" movement.
Atheism may be a "non-position."
But new atheism sure as hell is not.
9 May 2010 at 3:39 am
"Religious people are defective" is NOT a non-position.
Who has made that claim?
"Religious people are inherently more prone to violence and bigotry" is NOT a non-position.
Right, it's a fact claim that could potentially be supported by evidence. And if it is, it's not false just because you don't like it.
Yet those propositions are foundational pillars of the writings of Dawkins and Hitchens. They are the battle cry of the "new atheism" movement.
Oh, splush. That's not true, and you're just being silly.
Remember at the top of this thread when you got so annoyed because atheists were trying to say what the doctrines of Mormonism were?
Well, you're doing it. How ironic.
So I'll borrow your metaphor.
You don't need to tell us what our thinking is in this town. You've never lived here at all.
9 May 2010 at 8:09 am
*loud wolf whistling and applause* "Yay, you tell him Daniel!"
Seth, i think you are very anti-atheist. As I said before, I grew up an atheist in an atheist house with an entirely atheist family- I am not biased toward hating any religion/cult more than the other, but you sir, seem to think the only position not acceptable in life is not believing in any god.
Not very christian/mormon/spiritual of you???
11 May 2010 at 3:31 pm
——-
"Religious people are defective" is NOT a non-position.
"Religious people are inherently more prone to violence and bigotry" is NOT a non-position.
——-
The skeptic should look at the reasoning and evidences for these statements. They could be based on good evidence or bad evidence. We need to look at the evidence and determine if the conclusion logically follows. Not all skeptics will agree with Hitchens and Dawkins in this specific regard…I think because determining the causes for human behavior is more difficult than establishing that things like water dowsing is false.
—–
Nor am I interested in proving that God exists by some scientific set of proofs (like "Intelligent Design"), or set of logical proofs (like "Kalam Infinity"). I consider such proofs for God to be just as faulty as you do.
—–
You're right, I'm not interested in proofs. I am more interested in providing good enough evidence to for a hypothesis to eventually be considered a theory and then eventually be considered an accepted fact.
—–
My religious convictions rest almost solely upon whether they provide me with a world-view that works. And that's about it. My religious worldview works. It provides a powerful ethical, spiritual, and experiential paradigm that fits well with other data provided by the "hard sciences."
—–
I'm glad that you have found one that works. Do you use this as a reason that the Church is true? The utilitarian argument simply falls apart though when you see good fruit come from all kinds of trees.
—–
In fact, part of my belief system is that God is, by-definition, BEYOND such proofs anyway. Science simply has nothing to say about whether God exists – one way or the other.
—–
I think science has everything to say about the reasons used to support the God hypothesis. Just like science examines reasons that people use to believe in witchcraft, water dowsing, and all sorts of other things.
—–
I view atheist demands for scientific proof of God to be rather like rejecting poetry because it doesn't have a testable hypothesis.
—–
But we can look at the reasons why people believe in God. Are they good? Are they sound? Do believers make baseless assumptions?
11 May 2010 at 3:32 pm
In regards to your 2+2=4 example,
You are absolutely correct! One cannot say that 2+2 is 4 soleley on appeal to a bad authority. 2+2=4 should be considered false if the only reason we have is the authority and opinion of the boy's dad.
However, unlike fundamentalism, skeptical thought is always open to good evidence. Somebody can come along and say that they have good reasoning to show that 2+2 is 4. And when somebody using the rules of math shows that 2+2 really is 4 and the methods and rules used to come to this conclusion is agreed upon by other mathematicians, then it is safe to say that 2+2 is 4.
Science and skepticism aren't closed 'systems.' If one day there is good evidence to show that water dowsing really does work, then we must honor that good evidence. We are closed-minded in regards to baseless claims. However, we are open-minded to good evidence and good logic.
I am open for anybody to give me good evidence and reasoning that it is the 3rd member of the Godhead that causes feelings of warmth and peace when somebody prays to know if God loves him.
I shall ammend my line of thought that you rebutted. A true conclusion should not be assumed to be correct when it is based on bad reasoning and/or bad evidence. But that doesn't mean that good reasoning and/or good evidence could in the future show it to be true. But until that point, we cannot and should not assume that the conclusion is true.
Skeptics have shown that the "conclusion" that God exists does not logically follow the reasoning and evidence as provided by the believers. However, skepticism looks forward to the good evidence. But until then, it cannot be assumed that God exists. Therefore, atheists say, "we do not believe in a god."
11 May 2010 at 3:53 pm
Chris, the utilitarian argument works just fine for the purpose to which I am using it.
Again, you are trying to make my argument one of proving God when I already clearly stated that I have no interest in doing so.
I do not view the utilitarian argument as a definitive proof for God.
But I do view it as a definitive proof for why my religious affiliation and belief in God is a rational choice.
You see, the new atheism is not merely passively skeptical – as your position has been here. It is aggressively dismissive and mocking of religion. Full of clever one-liners, religious slurs, and Bill Maher. The position I am defending against is that religious people are retards. That our religious belief is proof positive that we are defective human beings. One has only to read the most popular books of the movement from Dawkins and Hitchens to get this vibe quite distinctly and strongly.
I don't care about proving God, and I haven't been trying to do so from comment #1. So to say that "that doesn't prove God" is to simply state the obvious as far as I'm concerned. But that's not what I was using the argument for.
11 May 2010 at 5:17 pm
I don't think the utilitarian argument should even be considered as even the slightest support for any dogma. I'm sorry my phrasing made it appear that I thought you were using it as definitive proof… I understand you don't use it as definitive proof. But do you use it as even a sliver of evidence for support of your claim that the LDS Church is the one and only true Church (I assume you believe this claim)?
I can understand how religious people do get offended by the likes of Hitchens because many of them are "religious moderates" and are not blowing up buildings but instead trying to do their best to live a life of charity and forgiveness.
Is somebody retarded for trying to follow Jesus' teachings of morality? I don't think so.
Can somebody be regarded as retarded for making baseless assumptions? I still don't think so, but I think that the line of thinking that is used to make the assumption is stupid.
Does Hitchens think the 'turn the other cheek' thinking is retarded? Or does he think that the baseless assumptions that theists make are retarded?
I actually haven't ready many books by Hitchens or Dawkins except for the God Delusion. I may not be objective, but I wouldn't consider the God Delusion to be offensive.
I do think there are several lines of thinking and reasoning that theists use that are stupid. For example, I see the correlation vs. causation mistake come up quite often. But I wouldn't call the person stupid, just certain aspects of their thinking (mainly claims that are based on assumptions).
11 May 2010 at 5:26 pm
I'd need to know what you mean by "one and true church" before I can answer that question Chris.
Let's just say Chris, that most of the atheists I've encountered online haven't been as nice or reasonable as you have been. There have been nice ones – I'm friends with a few. But not most of them unfortunately.
11 May 2010 at 5:26 pm
Calling the disparate beliefs of vast sums of people "deluded" in a book title is a good example of the oversimplification and disrespect which typifies the "meme" of the new atheist movement.
11 May 2010 at 6:33 pm
I think Chris and Seth R may have come to an understanding. They have both admitted there is no logical proof for God. I think this is the correct position for believers to take. It also follows that if the belief in God is not logical it is also not rational.
I am an exmo but my father is still very active as a patriarch and was also a university prof his whole life. He would never try to convince someone that his belief in God was logical or rational. He would simply say he knows he can't prove anything but has decided to take it on faith. So why don't you all quit trying to argue something as pointless as if God exists and just say it is a matter of faith.
11 May 2010 at 6:52 pm
BHodges said…
"Calling the disparate beliefs of vast sums of people "deluded" in a book title is a good example of the oversimplification and disrespect which typifies the "meme" of the new atheist movement."
True enough, if they find it disrespectful then it is so I will not argue that. What if the book title had been "the flat earth delusion." Many people also found that disrespectful and even killed people who espoused it.
Of course that didn't make the people who logically figured out that the earth was round wrong. I think I'd rather know that I am right than have faith that I am. Have you all noticed how much more "truth" we have in our lives using the scientific method. The human progress has been phenomenal since we stopped using faith and started using science. "You will know it by the fruit it gives forth." Pretty good fruit so far I'd say.
11 May 2010 at 7:12 pm
I'm not aware of such a book, but to your hypothetical I would say yes, a book by that name would be disrespectful. It would also likely turn off many potential readers. A person can try to be convincing without resorting to the use of pejorative labels.
As for the "scientific method," I don't know who that comment is directed to, I certainly appreciate the developments of science and technology while also trying to maintain a humility and reverence about them.
11 May 2010 at 7:35 pm
jeffrey,
My understanding was that a great many scientific discoveries WERE religiously motivated. I just don't see science an religion as being at odds any more than I view poetry and math as being at odds. They are talking about entirely different subjects.
Also, I would point out that just because a position cannot be logically proven does not make holding that position per se irrational.
If the religious paradigm a person holds is harmless, and maybe even beneficial, then wouldn't adhering to it be an entirely rational choice – even if God cannot be logically proven?
12 May 2010 at 1:41 am
If the religious paradigm a person holds is harmless, and maybe even beneficial, then wouldn't adhering to it be an entirely rational choice – even if God cannot be logically proven?
This reminds me of homeopathy, for some reason.
Like god-belief, there's no factual scientific basis for it, and like god-belief, some people think it makes them feel better.
So where's the harm in using a placebo?
The harm (in both cases) is that you're giving con-men money for something fake. The 'healing effect' is coming from inside of you.
Worse, someone who believes in homeopathy is eschewing real medicine. If they get really sick, they'll be in big trouble if all they take is fake medicine.
Someone who believes in a religion is accepting a fake method for finding out what's true, which means they'll be trying to solve real problems by using silly means, like rubbing oil on someone to heal diseases. They'll also waste their time by trying to evangelise others into the fake belief system, either on missions, or in the comments section of blogs, constructing elaborate but non-sensical defenses for their non-scientific belief systems.
This is not harmless or beneficial. There is harm in a false belief.
12 May 2010 at 1:45 am
Seth, I missed the post where commenter/s identified themselves as 'New Atheists' so maybe you could take that hate elsewhere?
P.S. Just because some of us here may agree with some of the things some 'famous' 'New Atheists' have said, dosn't mean we take on all their thoughs. That would be a religious doctine, and as we have learnt here Seth, Atheism is not a religion.
I also missed the part where a commenter accused a religious person of being stupid or retarded,but hey, if that's what you hear when [we] say "your beliefs have no foundation" then who are we to argue?
12 May 2010 at 1:53 am
That would be nice Daniel, if you were actually offering anything better.
12 May 2010 at 1:54 am
When I started writing my blog I was completely unprepared when I discovered that some of my Mormon friends were very offended by what I had written. They told me that they were offended because the things I was writing made them look like idiots for still believing. (I have to add that many of my Mormon friends did not respond like that and understood that I was trying to sort through some very big changes in my life). It certainly was a learning curve for me to remember that some people would feel offended by it and to try and keep that in mind when writing.
I have thought about it a lot. I like what someone said earlier about still liking/respecting the people but considering that some of their thought processes are 'retarded'. I consider that as a Mormon some of my thought processes were retarded. I would accept things without proof or explanation and I hate that I was like that, and for sooo long. I am annoyed with myself for being so close minded as a religious person. I think that Seth R is actually quite an open minded religious person, much more so than what I was as a Mormon. It is religious people with the mind set that I had who I think are dangerous, as in bad things can be done in their name by their religion because they are not informing themselves.
I'm not sure if I am explaining myself very well. I have tried to say a number of times to my friends that I do not hate Mormons, I hate the religion.. but I do understand that it is hard for members to separate themselves from their identity with the church and my attacks on the church feel like personal attacks to them.
12 May 2010 at 1:54 am
They'll also waste their time by trying to evangelise others into the fake belief system, either on missions, or in the comments section of blogs, constructing elaborate but non-sensical defenses for their non-scientific belief systems.
😀
12 May 2010 at 1:58 am
Maureen, I respectfully disagree. You are not, nor I think, have ever been, 'retarded'. It was just your way of thinking. But when you are brainwashed into thinking like that, I don't think you should have to take responsibility for it by calling yourself 'retarded'.
Does that make sense?
12 May 2010 at 2:01 am
And apparently, religions all brainwash people too.
But no, no one here ever said that being religious makes you defective in any way at all.
Oh no.
Just "brainwashed."
I'll have to keep that distinction in mind.
12 May 2010 at 2:07 am
That would be nice Daniel, if you were actually offering anything better.
I am, Seth.
Science.
12 May 2010 at 2:08 am
I've already got science Daniel.
What else you offering?
12 May 2010 at 2:10 am
You're only using science when it suits you. At other times, you're using superstition.
12 May 2010 at 2:14 am
Thanks TGIAA. I don't mean that I think I was retarded or that religious people are retarded, just that I recognise that I was not using my mind as I should have been….. my progress in life was being retarded by my blind religious obedience….
12 May 2010 at 2:16 am
How about you give me an example of when I've failed to use science Daniel?
12 May 2010 at 2:35 am
Please do keep that distinction in mind,Seth.
I will explain using a story/analogy about a Hypnotist act. I hope you will agree with me that hypnotism is a mild form of temporary brainwashing for the sake of my arguement.
Usually at the start of the show, the artist will ask for x number of volunteers. The show does not begin straight away- the hypnotist then performs a test (sometimes more than one) to separate the people that are less impressionable (help me with the right word o linguistic one) from the people that are more easily hypnotised. This is of course to make for a more entertaining show.
The people that are less impressionable, are politely asked to take their place back in the audience. Does this make the people left up on stage 'dumber' or more 'retarded' than the people returning to the audience? I don't think so. It's just because people are different.
Religion seeks out the 'weaker' more impressionable people to be their victims (followers) and attacks everyone else (atheists)
12 May 2010 at 2:37 am
Your very first comment on this thread.
Actually, Joseph Smith was continually evolving in his statements about the geography of the Book of Mormon.
So I don't have a particular problem taking the next step for him myself.
That's not doing science. If you were doing science, you'd be using available evidence to put together a picture of where Lamanites might have lived, and if there were no evidence, you'd admit it was a failed hypothesis.
Instead, you're declaring that you're going to continue Joseph Smith's tradition of making things up to salvage what you already believe.
12 May 2010 at 2:44 am
No Aetheist, it's quite clear that you harbor no contempt for religious people just for being religious.
Keep talking, by all means. You're amply demonstrating my earlier point about new atheism quite well.
Daniel, what does science have to do with reading more than a small selection of Joseph Smith quotes?
12 May 2010 at 2:44 am
TESTIFY!
12 May 2010 at 2:46 am
By the way Aetheist…
I think you've got a little brown on your nose there.
Just a little to the right…
12 May 2010 at 2:48 am
my comments have deemed to be fact by myself based on my own limited experience with the institution of religion.
I also believe that no matter how extreme or fundamental you may perceive New Atheism to be, it still doesn't come close to doing the damage to society that religion does. 😛
12 May 2010 at 2:48 am
my comments have deemed to be fact by myself based on my own limited experience with the institution of religion.
I also believe that no matter how extreme or fundamental you may perceive New Atheism to be, it still doesn't come close to doing the damage to society that religion does. 😛
12 May 2010 at 2:49 am
Seth, you're jumping around a bit.
At one point, you admit that your faith cannot be logically proven (though it is still somehow 'rational').
Now you're saying that you really are doing science.
Which is it?
Or does it not matter to you that you're saying completely different things within the space of an hour?
12 May 2010 at 2:55 am
And what damage would you call uniquely "religious" and not equally applicable to any group of messed up human beings?
12 May 2010 at 3:05 am
Huh? Who am I brown-nosing?
More of this turning around in circles again, Seth?
There are plenty of documented examples of people (cough) committing mass homicide in the name of religion. Look it up.
And you said religious people were messed up then, not me.
12 May 2010 at 3:12 am
Oh? Would you say the Nazis committed homocide in the "name of religion?"
12 May 2010 at 3:13 am
Hi, kids! Would you like to be a religious apologist? It's fun and easy, as long as you don't sweat the small stuff, like honesty or integrity.
All you have to remember is:
1. Say anything, convincingly.
2. If that doesn't convince 'em, say the opposite!
3. If that still doesn't work, criticise them for being mean.
4. But insulting isn't mean if you do it!
5. Don't forget to lead people on meaningless tangents if you feel your position weakening!
And remember, kids, never learn anything! You have The Truth, so you already know it all!
Have fun!
12 May 2010 at 3:16 am
Nope, no one here was trying to imply that religious people are "defective."
No sir.
Can't imagine where I got that impression from.
12 May 2010 at 3:19 am
Religion seeks out the 'weaker' more impressionable people to be their victims (followers) and attacks everyone else (atheists)
Keep talking, by all means. You're amply demonstrating my earlier point about new atheism quite well.
Not at all, Seth. It's smart to pick off the sick and weak ones for your survival. Aimals do it all the time. Just stating the facts how I see them.
Oh? Would you say the Nazis committed homocide in the "name of religion?"
Not very scientific of you to pick a sample size of 1 incident and form a conclusion based solely on that. Duh
12 May 2010 at 3:21 am
6. Don't forget Hitler!
12 May 2010 at 3:23 am
Dear Seth,
5. Don't forget to lead people on meaningless tangents if you feel your position weakening!
Aetheist.
Bahahahahahahaha!!!! Good one Daniel!
12 May 2010 at 3:44 am
From my short 6 week teaching prac where I got a crash course in teaching Nazi Germany … oh so fun 🙁
I picked up that Hitler was using religious ideas to promote racism.
"Many American books, television documentaries, and Sunday sermons that preach of Hitler's "evil" have eliminated Hitler's god for their Christian audiences, but one only has to read from his own writings to appreciate that Hitler's God equals the same God of the Christian Bible. Hitler held many hysterical beliefs which not only include, God and Providence but also Fate, Social Darwinism, and ideological politics. He spoke, unashamedly, about God, fanaticism, idealism, dogma, and the power of propaganda. Hitler held strong faith in all his convictions. He justified his fight for the German people and against Jews by using Godly and Biblical reasoning. Indeed, one of his most revealing statements makes this quite clear:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Check out this link for a bit more info
http://nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm
(oops, I just followed one of those tangents)
12 May 2010 at 3:57 am
"Bahahahahahahaha!!!! Good one Daniel!"
There's a little more brown on your nose there Aetheist. You'll have to do something about that.
12 May 2010 at 4:11 am
Seth is trolling us, folks. He was entertaining for a while, but I think he's past his use-by date.
And it's too bad, because I've seen his input on other blogs, and sometimes he can have some good insights. He's not the run-of-the-mill Mormon.
But here he's decided to be obtuse, obfuscational, and just plain childish.
What a shame. Maybe later we can have a substantive thoughtful discussion, instead of batting down every silly thing Seth decides to say.
12 May 2010 at 4:17 am
By the way, you've really gotta love the folks who are praising science while simultaneously positing "brainwashing" as a valid explanation, despite its being viewed by many social scientists largely as non-existent. Well played.
12 May 2010 at 4:20 am
Right, Daniel, because the guy who can't even spell "atheist" correctly is really bringing a lot of substance to the table…
12 May 2010 at 4:22 am
Good point, BH. I don't like the term 'brainwashing', myself. I don't think it's well-defined, and the common definition for me has connotations of something that someone does to you.
I find religious delusion to be at least in part voluntary. Wouldn't you agree?
12 May 2010 at 4:24 am
BH, you disappoint me again.
12 May 2010 at 4:44 am
Sure, just like atheist delusion I suppose. Or basketball delusion.
12 May 2010 at 4:57 am
delusion: A false belief that is resistant to confrontation with actual facts
12 May 2010 at 5:03 am
We're back to trading links? As long as we were just throwing words in from of "delusion" and assuming the argument has been made I thought I'd just play along.
Daniel delusion. Voluntary, or no?
12 May 2010 at 5:42 am
What can I say Daniel? You rubbed me the wrong way on this I guess.
Or maybe I was just in a pissy mood when I took up this topic.
But you are probably right that this has gone on long enough. I'm starting to enjoy this conversation – and not in a charitable way. That's always a bad sign, and probably a good indicator that I need to back away from the keyboard.
12 May 2010 at 5:52 am
I'm going to follow your example, Seth.
Let's try again one day on some other thread.
12 May 2010 at 6:09 am
BH,
I am a she(quick someone get an exorcist! a woman having free thought!), and I have explained my 'mispelling' of the word 'atheist' elsewhere. I don't feel the need to explain it to you. No need to get nasty. Or to take up fact that I have used one word you don't particularly like and disregard everything I have to say- i'm not the only one who has used that word you may have noticed.
Seth,
I'm not sure why you think me agreeing with Daniel, or simply respecting the fact that he has some expertise in the area of linguistics is brown-nosing? Maybe investing in a dictionary would be a wise decision?
No need to reply, I'm tired of this too.
12 May 2010 at 4:24 pm
—–
Seth: I'd need to know what you mean by "one and true church" before I can answer that question Chris.
—–
"Only true and living Church" D&C 1:30.
—–
Seth: That would be nice Daniel, if you were actually offering anything better.
—–
Seth, you are fortunate that many of the current "revelations" of the Mormon church are quite progressive as compared to many other dogmas of the world. I can think of a few benefits that Mormons would gain if they left Mormonism. I can think of several benefits that Muslim women would gain if they left Islam. I can think of a few awesome benefits that anyone can gain if they adopt a skeptical view of all baseless claims. Many benefits I point out could quite be based on opinion, so I don't think it would do any good to argue back and forth on those. But in general, I think people who are more skeptical and require good evidence tend to get swindled less.
—–
Jeffrey: I think Chris and Seth R may have come to an understanding. They have both admitted there is no logical proof for God. I think this is the correct position for believers to take. It also follows that if the belief in God is not logical it is also not rational.
—–
I do disagree that it's impossible to build a solid bridge from unbelief to belief. I also think it's irrational to build a partial bridge (made out of weak wood) and take a leap of faith to the other side. I find fault with the weak wood (bad evidence). And I question why anyone would take that leap (believe in an assumption).
12 May 2010 at 4:41 pm
Chris, I'm trying to finish up this conversation. But I thought I'd just point out that referencing D&C 1:30 doesn't really give me any additional information. It just repeats your own wording.
What I wanted to know was what you think those words mean.
Again, I don't want to light up a new debate tangent, but I still don't know what you mean by "only true and living church."
18 May 2010 at 3:32 pm
I mean it in the same way that I've heard many LDS members say it. I'm simply quoting. Is it not Mormon doctrine that the LDS Church is the one and only true church? "I know the Church is true…"
17 August 2011 at 10:57 am
Sorry to comment on a reaaaaallly old post (and one that seems to have been done to death at that), but I just killed my productivity at work today reading some of the comments on it.
The comments from the likes of (mormons) Mike Ash, Seth R, Bhodges and a couple of other commenters have more of the ugliness, stubbornness and lack of objectivity than any of the ex/anti-mormon stuff I have come across recently. You guys are scaring me OUT of the church.
There were a million things I thought of as I read all these comments but the one thing that has really killed it for me was Mike Ash saying something the the effect of "that's not what most church scholars believe" (or words to that effect, couldn't be bothered looking back to find quotation). Church scholars????? Are they the ones speaking to us at general conference? Are they the ones we are sustaining as prophets, seers and revelators? I guarantee that most of us at church have no idea what these church scholars believe, it's certainly not making its way into sunday school, priesthood, ym and yw, primary and seminary manuals. What we still get taught in all of the above is that the myths in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, all the crazy crap that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other church leaders have spruiked is 100% true and inspired. I don't understand where these scholars and apologists get off saying, "Yeah, I know that is what most of the church THINK they are supposed to believe, but here is what we, the scholars, have decided that they are really supposed to believe."
I actually liked it better when I could stick my fingers in my ears, go, "LALALALALAAAA, I don't care what you say because the spirit told me."
If the leaders of the church are inspired, they should go about silencing these church scholars because they, in a few comments on a blog post, have shaken my "testimony" more than any redneck, bible-bashing Baptist apologist ever did with his anti-mormon website.
Wouldn't you love to take Mike Ash back in time and have him tell Brigham Young which of his sayings were inspired and which were his own(incorrect) opinion. The crazy old fart would excommunicate Mike's ancestors!
7 March 2012 at 1:40 pm
Hi All –
My wife has been Mormon for about 10 years and (of course) has always tried to recruit me as well. I do study and do my own research (not as much as I should, obviously) but I don't know enough about the subjects discussed here to add any value to the discussion. I will say that the PEOPLE I have met in the LDS are far better that the average (whether deluded or not) and my only REAL comment here is to say that I DO appreciate the civil nature of the discussion presented here. Others I have read are sometimes really vile, nasty and laced with ad hominem attacks that the entire affair is of no real value – so, THANKS for the civility, and the profundity of seemingly well-informed and well meaning posts… Stanco