Hello to Tim Griffy

[Philo Sofee]

Hello Tim!
I really enjoyed this essay on God you wrote
https://tagriffy.blogspot.com/search?up ... -results=7

May I utilize it for a podcast soon? Or better yet, would you like to come onto my show and let's talk about this? I have been doing a new series of podcasts on the Backyardprofessor.org, https://backyardprofessor.org/ discussing as many ways, aspects, philosophies, and evidences of God as I can find - it's gonna take years - no, I am not joking - but what fun sharing ideas! I have Charles Harrell coming on pretty darn soon and we are going to do several shows together discussing his significant text This is My Doctrine. I am going to be making some new podcasts this weekend utilizing more of his chapters on God the Father, along with Boyd Kirtland's essays. I find yours here every bit as stimulating and interesting, thanks for writing it!

Yes, you can utilize it. I don't know about the logistics of appearing on your show, but I would certainly be interested. I think we clashed occasionally back in your Mopologetic days, so I think it would be interesting to compare notes now. If you PM me, we could exchange e-mail addresses and discuss things further.

Thank you my friend. Yes, we probably did clash years ago. It would be fun to see what I was trying to convince you of.... I will get in touch!

[tagriffy]

There just is no blanket logical rule of reciprocity about absence and presence, as evidence. You have to look in detail at how likely absence and presence would respectively be, under each rival hypothesis.

I think I see what you are saying here. In your opinion, do you think this has a significant effect on the particular argument I am making here? I perceive the original argument I'm responding to as an elaborate but-for argument. But-for the lack of Davidic references, the Book of Mormon would have a valid claim toward historicity. That seems to me to require that more Davidic references would be evidence of historicity. That is obviously wrong, though.

Having said that, I agree that bad arguments can be made in favour of true propositions, or against false ones. Just because the Book of Mormon actually is ahistorical doesn't mean that every argument against its historicity has to hold water. If the goal is to understand why and how things are true, and not just to tick the right final boxes, then it's important to unravel the flaws in a bad argument, even if one agrees with its conclusion. Even if one agrees that the Book of Mormon isn't historical, it's a worthwhile contribution to explain which reasons for believing that are sound, and which are actually bogus.

That was the main reason I thought I could make a contribution, even though I thought Lindsay's argument was good enough.

It's not uncommon in physics, on the other hand, for something to remain controversial for some time even though there's a simple argument for one side, until someone comes up with a trickier argument, that is somehow easier for people to accept. For one thing, it's harder to admit that you've failed to follow a simple proof, than to accept that you were confused on a tricky point. After the controversy is settled by the tricky proof, however, it often comes to be acknowledged that the simple argument was not only right but also perfectly valid, and people just didn't want to believe it. The tricky proof is then forgotten. I mention this just to warn that sometimes it's worth thinking twice about whether an argument that one would like to dismiss as simplistic is really as bad as one wants it to be.

And here I come, ready to make things a bit tricky!

[tagriffy]

Sure. Here’s the first episode in which RFM (our own user, Consiglieri) considers the Book of Mormon in context of magic. He has done other episodes on the topic, If I recall correctly.

https://radiofreemormon.org/2020/05/rad ... of-Mormon/

I have to say Consiglieri's theory is interesting. At this point, I don't fully buy it--I think the commentator "Ryan" introduces a whole bunch of caveats that need to be taken into account. (I have noted Consiglieri said something about following up in a later podcast, which I haven't gotten to yet). But notably we are not talking about mutually irreconcilable approaches. I could see something like Joseph having a bullet point list of things to cover in a given session while at the same time exercising his storytelling skills for the actual dictation.

However, the mechanics of producing the Book of Mormon has little, if anything to do with interpreting the work. It would help illuminate certain passages, for example the Mosiah verse Consiglieri referred to, but does not do much for interpreting the rest of the book. And its interpreting the final result that I'm most interested in at this point.

[tagriffy]

Thank you my friend. Yes, we probably did clash years ago. It would be fun to see what I was trying to convince you of.... I will get in touch!

Most likely it had something to do with trying to show the Book of Abraham really was ancient. Possibly that it actually came from the papyri (I don't remember clearly enough on that point). What I remember most clearly is that, whatever point you were trying to defend, you were rather bombastic about it. Even if I didn't agree, your essays were entertaining to say the least!

I don't know if this will make much a difference, but you might be interested in knowning that I converted into Mormonism already holding the view that Joseph Smith was the human author of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham (among other things). You can get the basic story in my "Things Old" blog post, but you would have to read between the lines (it was originally a talk delivered at church). My letter published in the April 1997 issue of Sunstone is more forthright about it.

I look forward to hearing from you!

[Kishkumen]

I don't know if this will make much a difference, but you might be interested in knowning that I converted into Mormonism already holding the view that Joseph Smith was the human author of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham (among other things). You can get the basic story in my "Things Old" blog post, but you would have to read between the lines (it was originally a talk delivered at church). My letter published in the April 1997 issue of Sunstone is more forthright about it.

I look forward to hearing from you!

I really enjoyed your post on the Anointed Quorum!

[Philo Sofee]

tagriffy
Most likely it had something to do with trying to show the Book of Abraham really was ancient. Possibly that it actually came from the papyri (I don't remember clearly enough on that point). What I remember most clearly is that, whatever point you were trying to defend, you were rather bombastic about it. Even if I didn't agree, your essays were entertaining to say the least!

No kidding! I was so determined to refute critics, and show Mormonism could hold up to anything that I rather became loud and obnoxious. Now I am just loud...

[Res Ipsa]

There just is no blanket logical rule of reciprocity about absence and presence, as evidence. You have to look in detail at how likely absence and presence would respectively be, under each rival hypothesis.

I think I see what you are saying here. In your opinion, do you think this has a significant effect on the particular argument I am making here? I perceive the original argument I'm responding to as an elaborate but-for argument. But-for the lack of Davidic references, the Book of Mormon would have a valid claim toward historicity. That seems to me to require that more Davidic references would be evidence of historicity. That is obviously wrong, though.

Having said that, I agree that bad arguments can be made in favour of true propositions, or against false ones. Just because the Book of Mormon actually is ahistorical doesn't mean that every argument against its historicity has to hold water. If the goal is to understand why and how things are true, and not just to tick the right final boxes, then it's important to unravel the flaws in a bad argument, even if one agrees with its conclusion. Even if one agrees that the Book of Mormon isn't historical, it's a worthwhile contribution to explain which reasons for believing that are sound, and which are actually bogus.

That was the main reason I thought I could make a contribution, even though I thought Lindsay's argument was good enough.

It's not uncommon in physics, on the other hand, for something to remain controversial for some time even though there's a simple argument for one side, until someone comes up with a trickier argument, that is somehow easier for people to accept. For one thing, it's harder to admit that you've failed to follow a simple proof, than to accept that you were confused on a tricky point. After the controversy is settled by the tricky proof, however, it often comes to be acknowledged that the simple argument was not only right but also perfectly valid, and people just didn't want to believe it. The tricky proof is then forgotten. I mention this just to warn that sometimes it's worth thinking twice about whether an argument that one would like to dismiss as simplistic is really as bad as one wants it to be.

And here I come, ready to make things a bit tricky!

for what it's worth, I found that paragraph very jarring. I agree with PG’s criticism, and I don’t think the paragraph is necessary for the argument you go on to make.

For me, that first premise in the paper you are responding is obviously unjustified. It ignores the fact that the ultimate content of something like the Old Testament is contingent on a huge number of events. There is no reasonable basis for predicting the content of a book of scripture created under the factual scenario presented in the Book of Mormon. The fairly convoluted history in the Book of Mormon of how the final contents of the plates came to be, alone, illustrates the contingencies: who recorded the events, who abridged the records, what was revealed to their unique prophets, etc. As you point out, we don’t even know the contents of the records this small, breakaway sect of Jews took with them.

The argument you made by counter example was, in my opinion, a good method of refuting the premise. No need to detract from it by including a flawed bit of reading that is unnecessary to your argument.

[tagriffy]

I really enjoyed your post on the Anointed Quorum!

Really? I consider that post something of a one-off. I was directed to Givens' post, made a comment on that post (now gone apparently), had a minor disagreement with Don about it, which discussion sparked the idea. From there, I just pounded it out and posted it while it was still fresh on my mind.

[tagriffy]

for what it's worth, I found that paragraph very jarring. I agree with PG’s criticism, and I don’t think the paragraph is necessary for the argument you go on to make.

For me, that first premise in the paper you are responding is obviously unjustified. It ignores the fact that the ultimate content of something like the Old Testament is contingent on a huge number of events. There is no reasonable basis for predicting the content of a book of scripture created under the factual scenario presented in the Book of Mormon. The fairly convoluted history in the Book of Mormon of how the final contents of the plates came to be, alone, illustrates the contingencies: who recorded the events, who abridged the records, what was revealed to their unique prophets, etc. As you point out, we don’t even know the contents of the records this small, breakaway sect of Jews took with them.

The argument you made by counter example was, in my opinion, a good method of refuting the premise. No need to detract from it by including a flawed bit of reading that is unnecessary to your argument.

Thank you for your thoughts. Obviously my thinking as expressed in that paragraph is not as self-evident as I thought. Luckily I don't think I'll have recourse to such an argument again. I'm still going to have difficulty with arguments where the opposite of the but-for wouldn't show anything, but I can deal with that.

[Kishkumen]

Really? I consider that post something of a one-off. I was directed to Givens' post, made a comment on that post (now gone apparently), had a minor disagreement with Don about it, which discussion sparked the idea. From there, I just pounded it out and posted it while it was still fresh on my mind.

Yes, well, that may be the case, but I think it is a great idea. I have had similar thoughts myself.