Is Mormonism so bad?

[Lem]

My husband is a nice, pleasant Catholic guy, who will be completely overwhelmed if my nasty LDS family gets involved. next thing you know, I will have a green apron on, a Mormon bishop officiating, and a Mormon veil over my face in my casket. I asked him about this and he said, in all sincerity, "but you're catholic, why would your Mormon family interfere?" Lol. He is so happily naïve, and so completely unprepared for the Mormon onslaught..

I doubt I would be able to discern an apron, veil, or Hefty garbage bag. I would want my children to be comforted.

What's your point? Or are you just trying to start something again?

[Physics Guy]

Maybe not all children are like this but I think the main thing about a funeral that comforts most people is the feeling that it was the kind of funeral that the departed would have wanted.

[IHAQ]

Maybe not all children are like this but I think the main thing about a funeral that comforts most people is the feeling that it was the kind of funeral that the departed would have wanted.

If the departed specified the details of their funerary requirements (in writing) prior to departure then that can be assured and the stress of what those arrangements will be can be avoided. I don't want a debate with my siblings about the arrangements for my parents funerals. I want them to specify the details of their own funerals.

[dastardly stem]

Um, no, Stem. Your problem here is you are coming from the position of someone who once believed it was incredibly important that Jesus lived because you also believed he made your resurrection and salvation from sin possible. Now that you are not sure that fairies exist, suddenly the rest of it appears to be negligibly important. I can tell you as a Roman historian that I take the gospels and other New Testament literature very seriously as historical documents, including both the authentic letters of Paul and the pseudepigraphic ones.

Thanks for this clarification. to be clear, I did not accuse anyone of not taking the historical documents seriously. I have no interest in suggesting anyone's credentials be questioned or disrespected. And for any misunderstanding there, I apologize.

Jesus is, I have concluded, most likely a historical figure because he was executed by Pontius Pilate, a figure known to Philo and Josephus who also left behind at least one inscription in the reign of Tiberius. His treatment of Jesus in connection with events surrounding Passover is consistent with other problems he dealt with at other Passover celebrations. He was a miserable governor who provoked and murdered Jews. The fact that the Gospel accounts of Jesus, the Passover, and Pilate match so well accounts of Pilate interacting with local Jews in other works means the Gospels provide valuable supporting witnesses to our other historical accounts of Pilate. No, I do not think that the Gospels are about a made-up Jesus into whose fictional life a historically verified Pilate was thrown for verisimilitude. Pilate is not the kind of figure who would be thrown in for those purposes. The emperor, yes. A minor governor in a backwater province, probably not.

I'm no expert. My reading is limited to a few Christian apologetic types, and few secularists, including Carrier. While he takes Pontius Pilate as a historic figure, it seems to me he'd argue, just because Pontius Pilate lived does not mean he executed Jesus all because people after Pontius lived said Pontius executed him. The crucial point, on Carrier's take, is Pontius nor any record verifying him, claims he executed Jesus until after the gospels were written. It makes sense to me to say, the story about Jesus fits in well with the way Pontius Pilate governed, but that alone doesn't verify Jesus lived. Pontius Pilate's legacy no doubt persisted for decades after he lived and so it was easy to use that legacy to create the story that Jesus was executed by him. I really don't see how Pontius Pilate being named verifies Jesus' life.

I keep doing exactly what I keep saying I'm not going to do--which is put myself out there as a Carrier defender. I don't mean to. I just keep getting responses declaring Carrier is wrong but then my memory gets ignited and I recall he's addressed these things. That no one seems aware of his books or scholarship makes me wonder if anyone here has taken him seriously. If he's wholly wrong and his scholarship eats it, I'd really like to know that. It makes sense, in fact, if he's wrong and wholly discredited that no one takes him seriously. But, of course, my problem is I'm no expert. I can only pay attention to the level I do and draw my own conclusions. I've looked to him in the past and think he has some extremely interesting things to share...and he's not alone of course. If I'm mistaken and you have taken his work seriously and can help explain the problems behind his conclusions, I'm all ears.

Googling pointed me to this from Carrier:

I suppose as a Christian apologist Jones would also “insist” Daniel must be authentic history and not (as all mainstream scholars now conclude) a myth composed in the second century B.C., merely because it “places Daniel with other historical people like Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar.” That’s simply a non sequitur. Historical method does not work that way. Historians all know ancient fiction and myth often enough incorporated real historical persons and had them interact with fictional ones. So that tells us nothing. And since Jones can present no evidence Tacitus checked these claims, he cannot assert they were verified not to be just as mythical as the Gospels that appear to have originated them—because again, the Gospels are the first time we ever hear of Jesus being in any way connected with any historical figure, Pilate or otherwise.

https://www.richardcarrier.information/archives/16984

Just to verify my memory worked on this. It appears he would say even if Pilate lived, it does not give evidence that Jesus lived.

[Kishkumen]

I'm no expert. My reading is limited to a few Christian apologetic types, and few secularists, including Carrier. While he takes Pontius Pilate as a historic figure, it seems to me he'd argue, just because Pontius Pilate lived does not mean he executed Jesus all because people after Pontius lived said Pontius executed him. The crucial point, on Carrier's take, is Pontius nor any record verifying him, claims he executed Jesus until after the gospels were written. It makes sense to me to say, the story about Jesus fits in well with the way Pontius Pilate governed, but that alone doesn't verify Jesus lived. Pontius Pilate's legacy no doubt persisted for decades after he lived and so it was easy to use that legacy to create the story that Jesus was executed by him. I really don't see how Pontius Pilate being named verifies Jesus' life.

No, it does not prove that Jesus lived, but it is strong evidence in the plus column that he did. What Carrier does is fiddle with the evidence in favor of historicity until he can nullify it in one way or another. That is what I make of his work in its totality. I want you to see how much evidence you can find of the existence of other minor governors of Roman provinces that make a dent beyond an inscription here or there. They usually don't get pulled into completely non-historical documents for window dressing. It is extremely unlikely to the point of conspiracy theory to say that someone went out to research Pilate carefully to insert him into the completely fabricated Jesus story. It is much more parsimonious to argue that Pilate and Jesus were both actual people who are historically connected and were subsequently reinterpreted/re-written through a specific theological lens.

I keep doing exactly what I keep saying I'm not going to do--which is put myself out there as a Carrier defender. I don't mean to. I just keep getting responses declaring Carrier is wrong but then my memory gets ignited and I recall he's addressed these things. That no one seems aware of his books or scholarship makes me wonder if anyone here has taken him seriously. If he's wholly wrong and his scholarship eats it, I'd really like to know that. It makes sense, in fact, if he's wrong and wholly discredited that no one takes him seriously. But, of course, my problem is I'm no expert. I can only pay attention to the level I do and draw my own conclusions. I've looked to him in the past and think he has some extremely interesting things to share...and he's not alone of course. If I'm mistaken and you have taken his work seriously and can help explain the problems behind his conclusions, I'm all ears.

I am not unaware of Carrier. I have read many of his blogposts and watched some of his YouTube videos. The fact that he "addresses" this or that is not really the point. Merely "addressing" something does not make your methodology sound. All it says is that you are energetic and convinced of your own rightness.

Googling pointed me to this from Carrier:

I suppose as a Christian apologist Jones would also “insist” Daniel must be authentic history and not (as all mainstream scholars now conclude) a myth composed in the second century B.C., merely because it “places Daniel with other historical people like Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar.” That’s simply a non sequitur. Historical method does not work that way. Historians all know ancient fiction and myth often enough incorporated real historical persons and had them interact with fictional ones. So that tells us nothing. And since Jones can present no evidence Tacitus checked these claims, he cannot assert they were verified not to be just as mythical as the Gospels that appear to have originated them—because again, the Gospels are the first time we ever hear of Jesus being in any way connected with any historical figure, Pilate or otherwise.

https://www.richardcarrier.information/archives/16984

Just to verify my memory worked on this. It appears he would say even if Pilate lived, it does not give evidence that Jesus lived.

I guess you breezed past my statement about drawing in the Roman emperor. Yes, that is EXACTLY what we would expect: a story-teller connects his hero with a king, prince, or what have you, because it makes his message seem very momentously important. "Wow! Really? Your hero rubbed shoulders with the king? The emperor? The crown prince? Your story MUST BE IMPORTANT!"

Not, "Wow, you mean your hero was ignominiously executed by a third-rate official with a Hicksville background in a backwater of the Roman Empire because he was a troublemaker during a Jewish feast?"

I am not convinced based on stupid arguments like these that Carrier really understands historical probability at all. He has a pretty two-dimensional and unpersuasive set of arguments about these issues.

[dastardly stem]

No, it does not prove that Jesus lived, but it is strong evidence in the plus column that he did. What Carrier does is fiddle with the evidence in favor of historicity until he can nullify it in one way or another. That is what I make of his work in its totality. I want you to see how much evidence you can find of the existence of other minor governors of Roman provinces that make a dent beyond an inscription here or there. They usually don't get pulled into completely non-historical documents for window dressing. It is extremely unlikely to the point of conspiracy theory to say that someone went out to research Pilate carefully to insert him into the completely fabricated Jesus story. It is much more parsimonious to argue that Pilate and Jesus were both actual people who are historically connected and were subsequently reinterpreted/re-written through a specific theological lens.

I am not unaware of Carrier. I have read many of his blogposts and watched some of his YouTube videos. The fact that he "addresses" this or that is not really the point. Merely "addressing" something does not make your methodology sound. All it says is that you are energetic and convinced of your own rightness.

I guess you breezed past my statement about drawing in the Roman emperor. Yes, that is EXACTLY what we would expect: a story-teller connects his hero with a king, prince, or what have you, because it makes his message seem very momentously important. "Wow! Really? Your hero rubbed shoulders with the king? The emperor? The crown prince? Your story MUST BE IMPORTANT!"

Not, "Wow, you mean your hero was ignominiously executed by a third-rate official with a Hicksville background in a backwater of the Roman Empire because he was a troublemaker during a Jewish feast?"

I am not convinced based on stupid arguments like these that Carrier really understands historical probability at all. He has a pretty two-dimensional and unpersuasive set of arguments about these issues.

I'm not seeing how this is strong evidence. I may be way off because, obviously, I'm not in the field. But I can't help what makes sense to me and what does not. I don't have any idea if a Greek speaking Jew of the late first century would think linking a person to Pilate would be a good way to verify that person's existence or not. Would it be a likely story to tell? I have no idea. And if you say Carrier has bad arguments, I can say..."ok. That's what you think." As a fellow human, though, I'm still finding his position more tenable on this point--I can't see how naming Pilate gives any evidence, let alone strong evidence, that Jesus lived. I don't think Pilate would need to be anything more than a person known to have supported the killing of someone to be a good candidate to use for the Jesus story.

[honorentheos]

In the threads from the old board there were discussions on how Carrier misrepresented the evidence or even abused it. This included instances where he argued for unusual readings of the Greek, cherry picked phrasing, dismissed historical practice, and generally took advantage of people who seemed uninterested in history as it actually is investigated and interpreted.

It reminds me of something said years ago on the old MAD board by a poster who had transitioned from a position of belief to non belief in the truth claims of the LDS church. Their comment was how their perspective on the world changed regarding certainty. Using a scale of 1 - 10, they contrasted their Mormon views of most of their beliefs about the world sitting on the two ends of that scale. They were either quite certain their beliefs about most things were true (9 or 10) or quite certain something wasn't true (1 or 2). Uncertainty was uncomfortable and one sought to prove or disprove a proposition so it could get to one end or the other of the scale. As they left Mormonism behind, they noted how their understanding of things shifted more into the middle, becoming less certain of their own certitude. Something being more probable than an other thing, but not certainly so, became quite normal as a position. It stopped being critical to try and move a claim into the polarized ends of certainty.

I think Carrier preys on this because Jesus as Christ is not a position one comes to most often as a 6 or 7 out of 10 belief. I believe Lord, forgive my disbelief. So when one is engaging in the historic questions around the man Jesus and finds a good deal of uncertainty, it seems like one is simply choosing belief once again. It fails to realize that historical probabilities exist all too often in the 4-6 range and require real care when considering the evidence.

Stem, where you see people not engaging Carrier blow for blow and finding it too easily dismissive is misapprehending what's going on. The fact is one only has to look at a couple of his argument, realize how he mistreats the evidence to recognize he isn't a good source to turn to on the topic. You don't have to spare Steven Segal for an hour to recognize he's a phony. Not recognizing he is a phony instead shows a person lacks a baseline understanding of the art where he claims to be an expert.

[dastardly stem]

In the threads from the old board there were discussions on how Carrier misrepresented the evidence or even abused it. This included instances where he argued for unusual readings of the Greek, cherry picked phrasing, dismissed historical practice, and generally took advantage of people who seemed uninterested in history as it actually is investigated and interpreted.

It reminds me of something said years ago on the old MAD board by a poster who had transitioned from a position of belief to non belief in the truth claims of the LDS church. Their comment was how their perspective on the world changed regarding certainty. Using a scale of 1 - 10, they contrasted their Mormon views of most of their beliefs about the world sitting on the two ends of that scale. They were either quite certain their beliefs about most things were true (9 or 10) or quite certain something wasn't true (1 or 2). Uncertainty was uncomfortable and one sought to prove or disprove a proposition so it could get to one end or the other of the scale. As they left Mormonism behind, they noted how their understanding of things shifted more into the middle, becoming less certain of their own certitude. Something being more probable than an other thing, but not certainly so, became quite normal as a position. It stopped being critical to try and move a claim into the polarized ends of certainty.

I think Carrier preys on this because Jesus as Christ is not a position one comes to most often as a 6 or 7 out of 10 belief. I believe Lord, forgive my disbelief. So when one is engaging in the historic questions around the man Jesus and finds a good deal of uncertainty, it seems like one is simply choosing belief once again. It fails to realize that historical probabilities exist all too often in the 4-6 range and require real care when considering the evidence.

Stem, where you see people not engaging Carrier blow for blow and finding it too easily dismissive is misapprehending what's going on. The fact is one only has to look at a couple of his argument, realize how he mistreats the evidence to recognize he isn't a good source to turn to on the topic. You don't have to spare Steven Segal for an hour to recognize he's a phony. Not recognizing he is a phony instead shows a person lacks a baseline understanding of the art where he claims to be an expert.

I can appreciate the point, honor. I'm just not seeing the failures you allude to. I suppose I'm being pretty stubborn on the point. Part of that is because I've read a couple of his books and seen some videos of his, and read some other pieces and don't see the weaknesses you think exist. When someone points them out, like Kishkumen does above, with his mention of Pontius Pilate, I admit, I can't see why there is something amounting to strong evidence there. And since the story of Jesus, not whether he lived or not, is almost certainly made up, I don't see why there being an actual Jesus crucified under Pilate's watch would matter anyway, in terms of proving historicity. What are we proving? That someone lived during that proposed era? Taught some form of Judaism? Fine...anyone can agree with that. If the story of his life is so made up that it doesn't appear to connect to any reality, then what are we saying when we say he really did live? Some random person lived and years after he lived a bunch of stories were made up about him? What would even be the nature of the disagreement at that point?

[Morley]

In the threads from the old board there were discussions on how Carrier misrepresented the evidence or even abused it. This included instances where he argued for unusual readings of the Greek, cherry picked phrasing, dismissed historical practice, and generally took advantage of people who seemed uninterested in history as it actually is investigated and interpreted.

It reminds me of something said years ago on the old MAD board by a poster who had transitioned from a position of belief to non belief in the truth claims of the LDS church. Their comment was how their perspective on the world changed regarding certainty. Using a scale of 1 - 10, they contrasted their Mormon views of most of their beliefs about the world sitting on the two ends of that scale. They were either quite certain their beliefs about most things were true (9 or 10) or quite certain something wasn't true (1 or 2). Uncertainty was uncomfortable and one sought to prove or disprove a proposition so it could get to one end or the other of the scale. As they left Mormonism behind, they noted how their understanding of things shifted more into the middle, becoming less certain of their own certitude. Something being more probable than an other thing, but not certainly so, became quite normal as a position. It stopped being critical to try and move a claim into the polarized ends of certainty.

I think Carrier preys on this because Jesus as Christ is not a position one comes to most often as a 6 or 7 out of 10 belief. I believe Lord, forgive my disbelief. So when one is engaging in the historic questions around the man Jesus and finds a good deal of uncertainty, it seems like one is simply choosing belief once again. It fails to realize that historical probabilities exist all too often in the 4-6 range and require real care when considering the evidence.

Stem, where you see people not engaging Carrier blow for blow and finding it too easily dismissive is misapprehending what's going on. The fact is one only has to look at a couple of his argument, realize how he mistreats the evidence to recognize he isn't a good source to turn to on the topic. You don't have to spare Steven Segal for an hour to recognize he's a phony. Not recognizing he is a phony instead shows a person lacks a baseline understanding of the art where he claims to be an expert.

I can appreciate the point, honor. I'm just not seeing the failures you allude to. I suppose I'm being pretty stubborn on the point. Part of that is because I've read a couple of his books and seen some videos of his, and read some other pieces and don't see the weaknesses you think exist. When someone points them out, like Kishkumen does above, with his mention of Pontius Pilate, I admit, I can't see why there is something amounting to strong evidence there. And since the story of Jesus, not whether he lived or not, is almost certainly made up, I don't see why there being an actual Jesus crucified under Pilate's watch would matter anyway, in terms of proving historicity. What are we proving? That someone lived during that proposed era? Taught some form of Judaism? Fine...anyone can agree with that. If the story of his life is so made up that it doesn't appear to connect to any reality, then what are we saying when we say he really did live? Some random person lived and years after he lived a bunch of stories were made up about him? What would even be the nature of the disagreement at that point?

Stem, you're right about this point. The existence of Jesus isn't the issue. So why should Carrier even make the claim, especially when there are proofs to the contrary?

Jimmy claims to have a ray gun that once made someone invisible. I say loudly to everyone who will listen that this is rubbish, that the gun doesn't even exist. Then Jimmy produces the gun from his pocket. Whether or not the gun has made someone invisible has been forgotten. The issue has become the existence of the gun.

Carrier's doing the same thing with Jesus as I did with Jimmy's gun.

.

[mentalgymnast]

No, it does not prove that Jesus lived, but it is strong evidence in the plus column that he did. What Carrier does is fiddle with the evidence in favor of historicity until he can nullify it in one way or another. That is what I make of his work in its totality. I want you to see how much evidence you can find of the existence of other minor governors of Roman provinces that make a dent beyond an inscription here or there. They usually don't get pulled into completely non-historical documents for window dressing. It is extremely unlikely to the point of conspiracy theory to say that someone went out to research Pilate carefully to insert him into the completely fabricated Jesus story. It is much more parsimonious to argue that Pilate and Jesus were both actual people who are historically connected and were subsequently reinterpreted/re-written through a specific theological lens.

I am not unaware of Carrier. I have read many of his blogposts and watched some of his YouTube videos. The fact that he "addresses" this or that is not really the point. Merely "addressing" something does not make your methodology sound. All it says is that you are energetic and convinced of your own rightness.

I guess you breezed past my statement about drawing in the Roman emperor. Yes, that is EXACTLY what we would expect: a story-teller connects his hero with a king, prince, or what have you, because it makes his message seem very momentously important. "Wow! Really? Your hero rubbed shoulders with the king? The emperor? The crown prince? Your story MUST BE IMPORTANT!"

Not, "Wow, you mean your hero was ignominiously executed by a third-rate official with a Hicksville background in a backwater of the Roman Empire because he was a troublemaker during a Jewish feast?"

I am not convinced based on stupid arguments like these that Carrier really understands historical probability at all. He has a pretty two-dimensional and unpersuasive set of arguments about these issues.

I'm not seeing how this is strong evidence. I may be way off because, obviously, I'm not in the field. But I can't help what makes sense to me and what does not. I don't have any idea if a Greek speaking Jew of the late first century would think linking a person to Pilate would be a good way to verify that person's existence or not. Would it be a likely story to tell? I have no idea. And if you say Carrier has bad arguments, I can say..."ok. That's what you think." As a fellow human, though, I'm still finding his position more tenable on this point--I can't see how naming Pilate gives any evidence, let alone strong evidence, that Jesus lived. I don't think Pilate would need to be anything more than a person known to have supported the killing of someone to be a good candidate to use for the Jesus story.

Just as an aside, if any folks here like to read historical fiction and would be interested in a story that goes down the same path as the discussion at this point, here’s a fun read:

https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Pilate-Pa ... NrPXRydWU=

I’ve quite enjoyed it so far. Sort of along the same line as Da Vinci Code.

Regards,
MG