David Bokovoy and a Kuhnian Approach to Mormonism

[_bcspace]

Of course it is. My only objection is that it may not be a good move to have any "non-negotiable" parts of the paradigm. But it's certainly legitimate.

Yes. This is the result of not having been able to establish truth. One becomes more accepting of a type of compromise that keeps one away from truth. There is good reason why all is black and white without exception. It's how truth is found. It's the scientific method of hypothesis and proof.

[_Runtu]

I think it is illgitimate. The truth is that the Book of Mormon (and the Bible as well) make claims of historicity. The efficacy, existence, and many critical doctrines of the LDS Church hinges on such historicity. Some TBM's (supposed) on the MADB argued against me on this but then I caught them applying historicity to show that Lehi indeed could've be descended from Manasseh (critical because of Book of Mormon claims about the lineage of Joseph Smith and the identification of him as a prophet).

Consider also...If a prophet is quoted as having taught a principle, proponents of the nonhistoricity of the scriptures will claim that the principle is still true. But how can we know that if the prophet who said that never really existed? Where is his testimony in that case?

So we can quibble all we want about the details of historicity such as a world-wide vs. universal Flood, literal or figurative fruit in the Garden, etc., but there is no truth to LDS (or any other Christian) claims if the scriptures have no historicity. Something historical must have happened to bring us the Fall of man or the Flood, etc.

I don't begrudge anyone their belief in a non-literal but inspired Book of Mormon. It doesn't work for me (or for you, obviously), but I don't believe that its literalness matters at all in its purported mission, which is to bring people to Christ.

Of course, if we are insisting on historicity, it might be nice if there were some real evidence of that.

[_bcspace]

I don't begrudge anyone their belief in a non-literal but inspired Book of Mormon. It doesn't work for me (or for you, obviously), but I don't believe that its literalness matters at all in its purported mission, which is to bring people to Christ.

Of course, if we are insisting on historicity, it might be nice if there were some real evidence of that

How can people be brought to Christ if Christ (a historical figure) didn't exist? Nonhistoricity advocates are a lot like liberal Protestants (deniers of Christ's Divinity or Divine origin) which are really not all that far removed from atheists. One can easily see how nonhistoricity is the high road to atheism.

Not that I'm suprised. Since the LDS Chuch is the pinnacle of Christianity, nothing else Christian will do (for one who is not attracted to other religions) and atheism is the only logical alternative.

[_Runtu]

How can people be brought to Christ if Christ (a historical figure) didn't exist? Nonhistoricity advocates are a lot like liberal Protestants (deniers of Christ's Divinity or Divine origin) which are really not all that far removed from atheists. One can easily see how nonhistoricity is the high road to atheism.

I fail to see how the historicity of the Book of Mormon affects the validity of Christ. Can you clarify this? If the Book of Mormon is allegorical or fraudulent, you still have the historical figure of Christ.

Not that I'm suprised. Since the LDS Chuch is the pinnacle of Christianity, nothing else Christian will do (for one who is not attracted to other religions) and atheism is the only logical alternative.

The pinnacle of Christianity? Yikes. It's funny how we were taught it was the church or nothing. Once you step back from it all, you don't see things in such stark terms.

[_bcspace]

I fail to see how the historicity of the Book of Mormon affects the validity of Christ. Can you clarify this? If the Book of Mormon is allegorical or fraudulent, you still have the historical figure of Christ.

How is Christ historical if the Book of Mormon is allegorical or fraudulant? Are you also claiming the Bible is not?

The pinnacle of Christianity? Yikes.

Indeed. Ours is the only Christian doctrine that makes any Biblical sense.

It's funny how we were taught it was the church or nothing.

I was never taught that. It's the conclusion I have come to.

Once you step back from it all, you don't see things in such stark terms.

I am happy to swim in the truth, no matter what that may be. Simply knowing the truth, even if stark, allows one to know how to react and what to do.

Although there is some appeal to the ignorance is bliss notion. Too late for that for me. I have the gnosis.

[_Gadianton]

It was readily apparent, despite his extraordinary capabilities for math and engineering, that he'd just assumed the church makes all kinds of sense without exploring any contrary or alternative ways of thinking.

Seeing as how these are my fields, how does math and engineering speak against the Church or cause one to explore 'contrary' or 'alternative' ways of thinking? The scientific method is king and even the scriptures suggest we use it (such as John 7:17).

I take it basic English comprehension isn't one of your fields?

[_Sethbag]

What you have, BCSpace, is self-delusion. Your strength of belief is no different than that of Osama bin Laden, or the Pope, or Jerry Falwell, or the Jehovah's Witnesses down the street at the Kingdom Hall. Only your chosen brand of "Truth" is different.

[_dartagnan]

So when the missionaries present new evidence that contradicts their Catholic investigators' assumptions, the Catholic investigator should merely employ a paradigm shift rather than join Mormonism?

Shades, I was about to say the same thing.

What I would like to know is how and why David reaches his conclusion that merely shifting one’s paradigm is better than abandoning the faith.

Does it not even matter if the evidence convinces one that the Church isn’t true? Why should someone stay if they no longer believe it is true?

Most ad hoc apologetics is a exercise in constant paradigm shifting. It seems this is David’s suggestion, which is in full swing as we speak. Ad hoc apologetics is taking over FARMS and FAIR. No matter what evidence exists against LDS claims, just keep recreating your standard of evidence in ways that allow room for the Church to still be true. This is supposed to be an intellectually admirable route to take? It smacks of denial and desperation, doesn’t it? Who could really expect to be taken seriously after employing this kind of logic?

Anyway, I remember DCP was egged on for blind faith when he was accused of denying evidence no matter how strong. He responded that if enough evidence was presented, he would abandon Mormonism. He said that if someone discovered an authenticated confession signed by Joseph Smith, claiming the whole thing was a scam, then that would be strong enough to get him out.

But David seems to be suggesting that there can never be enough evidence to dissuade him from his position (in any other context this would be considered pig-headedness). All he has to keep doing is recreate his paradigm to allow room for the counter-evidence to exist in a fantasy world where the Church can "plausibly" still be true.

David, if you’re trying to convince people leaving the Church is never a good idea, then this is the wrong way to go about it. All you’re doing here is telling us more about you, and just how meaningless compelling evidence really is in your paradigm. Also, when one abandons the faith this becomes a paradigm shift in itself, so there really is no way around this anyway.

[_charity]

Both sethbag an dartagnan are completely avoiding the issue of the spiritual witness. Why is that? It is the basis for the argument. I realize it is unhandy to deal with.

[_Runtu]

Both sethbag an dartagnan are completely avoiding the issue of the spiritual witness. Why is that? It is the basis for the argument. I realize it is unhandy to deal with.

Not really. I would imagine that they believe, as do I, that the spiritual witness is part of the paradigm. You seem to be of the opinion that the spiritual witness resides outside of the paradigm.