Apologetics: Why bother?

[_Ray A]

Well, first, you changed my example. I said apologetics had done a good job of refuting the traditional LDS hemispheric view, not for proving a specific setting.

Thanks for the reply, Buck. Actually, I didn't change your example. As I said in my post, what you wrote "[had] me wondering" how a jury might approach evidences for and against Book of Mormon historicity. I was extending your observations to a larger question.

But I'll still answer the jury question. I think both scholars supporting and scholars opposing Book of Mormon historicity would have valid points to make. Which would convince a jury would depend on who has the burden of proof and what the required standard of proof is, not to mention the ever-present reality that different juries can reach different results (we use juries not because they yield the truth, but because they are the best way to resolve disputes where the truth is cannot be indisputably shown).

Your last bracketed comment is quite obvious to me in the case of Lindy Chamberlain. The Wiki entry isn't complete either. Crucial eyewitness evidence was not put before the court. I realise that juries don't always get it right. Think O.J.Simpson, too.

If the burden of proof was clear and convincing evidence or higher (beyond a reasonable doubt), then neither side would be able to meet the burden. If the burden of proof was a perponderance of evidence (ie, more likely than not), then the result would turn on the predisposition of the jurors. Not surprisingly, this is what we find in the real world. Those predisposed to believe tend to latch onto the pro side. Those predisposed to disbelieve tend to latch onto the con side.

I think the two examples I've given are also pertinent here. I suppose it's quite possible for 12 people to be swayed by lawyers' arguments rather than facts, and in the Chamberlain case the prosecuting lawyer was one of the best in the business, but he presented the case in such a way that it swayed an incorrect verdict, which was later recognised by the authorities. I read the full transcript of the trial, by the way, and the eyewitness testimony which wasn't presented in court.

Well, I don't think it's any secret that I've looked at the evidences for Book of Mormon historicity in some depth over the past 8 years online, apart from some prior ten years of reading hardcopy on the subject. But even without going into scholarly depth, would you agree that "first base" claims like there were Christians living in 2,200 BC and 600 AD, and at one time they practised both Christianity and the Law of Moses at the same time, would be a difficult if not impossible evidence to accept in light of historical facts? How difficult would it be for a lawyer to shoot that down in court, bringing, say, several expert witnesses to show the very high unlikelihood, if not impossibility of this? In other words, we are being asked to overturn everything we know about pre-Christian history, and which contradicts every historical account of the beginnings of Christianity.

I'm looking at this from a purely legal viewpoint, which is why I'm asking you. You're not the only lawyer on the board, by the way.

As to the Moroni test, I don't recall Moroni ever calling it a proof.

Well, he did. He said that you can know the "truth of all things". But it's not proof as in legal matters, it's subjective, spiritual proof, which brings a variety of responses.

The purpose of the Book of Mormon is not to prove anything if "prove" is understood to mean "compel belief." Even if the historicity were "proven" that would not prove the purpose of the Book of Mormon (the Jesus is the Christ) anymore than the Bible's historicity does. Faith is very much necessary. What the Book of Mormon does, and the apologetics who support it, is to create a scenario in which belief is possible and even plausible, thereby allowing us to choose if we want to believe. But our choice will never impact what the truth really is. The Book of Mormon isn't on trial. We, the jury, are.

Your last sentence reflects what Ezra Taft Benson said. But the fact is that for many who are questioning, the Book of Mormon is on trial (just visit RFM if you doubt me). I have no problem with someone who says they have a "spiritual witness", nor with the millions of members who testify that they've had a "burning in the bosom" confirmation. The problem, as I see it, is when that burning in the bosom translates into "historical veracity". Or, burning in bosom = historical truth, especially when there are so many evidences to the contrary, as in the brief examples I've given above. My personal opinion, as one who has long had an "emotional investment" in the Book of Mormon, is that emotion/spiritual belief, can cloud or even eradicate one's judgments in regard to very real and problematic evidences against Book of Mormon historicity. For one so predisposed, I agree it's not easy. As John Clark said, you have to first believe, then "the evidences become clearer". I have experienced this. But I've also concluded that while "spiritual magnification" may highlight evidences blurred by disbelief, the contrary evidence, and lack of evidence is so compelling, that it should lead a rational person to reject the Book of Mormon as history. And this may, of course, have no bearing on how a person feels about the Book of Mormon.

[_Ray A]

Just in case Pal Joey's forgotten, here is the latest iteration of Jersey Girl's question to him:

Joey,

Give me the names of academic journals that accept the work of religious scholars for publication (and/or peer review), the criteria for submission and a list of religious scholars whose work has been accepted by said academic journals.

Pony it up.

She's clearly asking for examples of mainstream academic journals that publish denomination-specific apologetics.

I wait with bated breath for his answer.

I think your definition is much clearer, as I have placed in bold.

No, I know of none either.

Maybe what Joey is (also) asking for is something along the lines of History Today publishing an article on, say, "Nephites in Ancient Mesoamerica"?

For example, in the "Native America - Prehistory and Survival" section:

Among the various Native American ways of life that the conquistadors described, anthropologists recognise successive types of social and economic organisation through which civilisation had developed. Review of archaeologists', historians' and ethnographers' findings reveals the diversity of traditions disrupted after 1492. Prehistory also accounts for the Native Americans' fatal susceptibility to the new arrivals. Our aim here, then, is to range beyond the Aztecs, discussed in the previous article, in search of the broader patterns of Native American history, both prior to contact and since.

The New World was an ancient palimpsest. Cortes, in Mexico, and Pizarro, in Peru, discovered the largest and most complex societies in Native American history, the empires of the Aztecs and the Incas, respectively. Elsewhere in Mexico, they found societies smaller but stratified, like the Aztecs and Incas, by distinctions of authority and privilege. Columbus, in Hispaniola, and his colleagues, around the southern Caribbean, discovered other large populations paying tribute to chiefs whose power was less absolute – but which could be bolstered in the conquerors' interests. In Lower Central America, Brazil and southern North America, there flourished many smaller societies with institutions of yet more modest scope. All these peoples lived in towns or villages. By contrast, there lived non-sedentary peoples, comparatively unfettered by inherited status or rank, thinly distributed in remoter parts of the West Indies, in southern South America, and across most of western and northern North America. ....

Could this be what he means by "they don't take it seriously", at least referring to what I have outlined above?

[_Ray A]

I did a search in History Today to see if I could find anything on "Book of Mormon". There were articles on Mormon history, and on Joseph Smith, a real religious phenomenon. One on family history, and also "Revisiting the Mound-builder Controversy". In that section there was also a reference to "Utopia Revisited", by Barbara Goodwin, with an excerpt:

Utopia Revisited

'An acre in Middlesex is better than a principality in Utopia'. Thomas Macaulay

'The belief in the possibility (or probability) of happiness as the product of rational organisation...is the heart of all the utopias'. Isaiah Berlin

'A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which humanity is always landing. And when humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopia.' Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism (1891)

Eden, Arcadia, the Golden Age, Paradise, the Land of Cockayne – every culture has its dream of a better world. In Western secular thought, this aspiration has become known as Utopia, an earthly paradise created by human endeavour. But in political debate today, 'utopia' is invariably used in an unfavourable sense, to mean ‘unattainable’ or ‘unrealistic’. The commendatory, idealistic sense of the word is usually neglected. When Thomas More coined the term in 1516, he was punning in Greek. ‘Eutopia’, the good place, was also ‘utopia’, no place. Those who followed More and wrote their own utopias often discarded the negative, 'no-place' connotation and argued that the ideal society, as they envisaged it, could indeed be realised.

A utopia is a good, or even a perfect, society. Utopians differ from political idealists because they .... (Emphasis added)

And from Phillip Abbott:

Utopians at Play.

by Philip Abbott

THE UTOPIAN FORM1 as a sub genre of theorizing about political issues has been widely criticized as one that is especially characterized by its absence of play. Activity that is enjoyable, lacking extrinsic goals (that is, "inherently unproductive"), spontaneous and voluntary (2) is regarded by critics as the antimony of utopia. Jean Elshtain's conclusion that when utopias are not boring, they are deadly (204) is typical of these reactions which themselves form a large part of an antiutopian sensibility. This critique includes both the authorial decision to engage in the writing of utopia itself as well as the description of life in imagined utopian societies themselves. The decision to construct an ideal society is thus seen as animated by a kind of earnestness that eliminates play. Utopians are so single-minded, so resolute in their project, so serious and sober that they cannot tolerate play. While antiutopians would readily admit that play itself frequently includes elements of earnestness, to which any bridge player, wedding planner, or pick-up touch football quarterback will attest, the utopian will permit only one instance of earnestness, the building of her society. Thus Leonard Schapiro in his summary of antiutopian thought includes a series of propositions each of which is antithetical to play conceived as experimentation, spontaneity or simple recreation. For the antiutopian, utopians (1) are preoccupied with ends and are indifferent to means; (2) view persons and society as a totality; (3) make firm and dogmatic assumptions; (4) are obsessed with management; (5) neglect human variety. (3) Karl Popper in his classic attack identifies the "utopian engineer" who cannot afford to permit any respite that might delay or alter his "blueprint" (160). More recently Frederic Rouvillois concluded that utopias "with their obsession to rehabilitate man and condemn him to happiness" resemble totalitarian regimes and totalitarian systems: "Even when they don't acknowledge the connection, they invariably remind us of utopias, whose goals, mottoes, and means they appropriate" (317).

For the antiutopian, the content of any particular utopia is immaterial to her assessment. Whether the utopia is one of abundance or scarcity, centralized or decentralized, capitalist or socialist, the genre derives from the same theoretical and methodological approach to politics. Utopias that are overtly playful such as somtopias and those that are noted for their stolidity such as Bellamy's Looking Backward are indistinguishable. (4) Similarly, antiutopians argue that the content of utopias proves their broader critique. Utopias are bereft of play, both for adults and children. Either play is scrupulously excised as a form of activity or play is transformed into agitprop for the utopian regime. For example, Plato in the Republic systematically censors music, literature and poetry as well as "playfulness" among the gods in order to protect young minds from contagion and More's dinner hour games are all designed to reinforce the triumph of virtue. In Rabelais's account of the Abbey of... (Emphasis added)

The 200 year reign of peace and happiness described in the Book of Mormon in 4 Nephi:1, wherein the "perfect society" is created, is a Utopian dream. It doesn't come under "real history".

And this is further to my points to Buckeye.

[_JustMe]

Ray A

Well, I don't think it's any secret that I've looked at the evidences for Book of Mormon historicity in some depth over the past 8 years online, apart from some prior ten years of reading hardcopy on the subject. But even without going into scholarly depth, would you agree that "first base" claims like there were Christians living in 2,200 BC and 600 AD, and at one time they practised both Christianity and the Law of Moses at the same time, would be a difficult if not impossible evidence to accept in light of historical facts?

I suspect a new and very, very bright light on this will be John W. Welch's brand spanking new legal case for many of the cases of a legal manner in the Book of Mormon, The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon, Neal A. Maxwell Insititute, 2008. I believe his legal case showing the legal cases in the Book of Mormon are powerful. Really quite astonishingly powerful! F. Rachel Magdalene (Assistant professor of Old Testament, Augustana College) says of Welch's work "I am not Mormon. Nonetheless, I find the book to be consistent with the standards of rigorous scholarship within Mormon studies, biblical law and legal history." Raymond Westbrook (Professor of Near Eastern Studies, John Hopkins University) said of Welch's materials, "A very well organized, crystal clear presentation. The cases that Welch cites are perfectly comprehensible. I heartily endorse the general comments on the legal approach to ancient scriptures."

What are the historical facts Ray? Are they the same as we had just 40 years ago? Are they the same "facts" that all historians agreed on 55 years ago? Will they remain the same through all time? In other words, are we now saying that we have the historical "facts" assessed validly, and there is nothing new now under the sun to gain in understanding? Finality has been achieved? What consititutes a "historical fact"? Just what is a fact?

One of my favorite biological scientists, Stephen Jay Gould, quite controversial, seriously well informed, astonishingly able to debate and defend his viewpoints of evolution (in fact, it is his arguments that, in large part, convinced me that evolution is really quite accurate and important to understand and worth studying for its own sake, let alone all the other idiot crank theories out there) has noted that "fact does not mean 'absolute certainty.'... [yes I am skipping his evolutionary idea here because I am applying it to your view which I think still has the proper cotext] ..."fact can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'" Hen's Teeth and Horses's Toes, W W Norton & Company, 1983): 254-255. That being said, facts in and of themselves are never final, as Gould's massive and further research went on to prove! He showed that it was perverse to withhold assent on the fact that facts are never the last word. Something always comes up which overturns our worldviews, and which subjects are overturned is absolutely every single one of them.... now that should give us pause.

I'm just yammerin with ya.

[_Trevor]

You know, that's great, JM, but there is precious little to hang the historical Book of Mormon on. Precious little that would move a non-Mormon to go beyond praising this book to saying, "ya know? I think the Book of Mormon is an ancient text." It remains a matter of testimony, and it probably always will. I am not saying testimony is bad, or that you are a fool for believing it. Hell, knock yourself out as you study the Book of Mormon through modern interpretations of antiquity. For me, however, there must remain a distinction between what is used as evidence to increase our understanding of antiquity as it transpired in Pre-Columbian America, and what one is edified by as a matter of faith.

We may not agree, but that is cool. You are a good bunch of guys, and I respect your intelligence & learning (general scholarship too). I simply don't agree.

[_Ray A]

What are the historical facts Ray? Are they the same as we had just 40 years ago? Are they the same "facts" that all historians agreed on 55 years ago? Will they remain the same through all time? In other words, are we now saying that we have the historical "facts" assessed validly, and there is nothing new now under the sun to gain in understanding? Finality has been achieved? What consititutes a "historical fact"? Just what is a fact?

One fact I can think of is that people, or even prophets, cannot see 2,500 years into the future. Yet this is what the Book of Mormon claims in regard to Nephi, who "saw our day" with perfect clarity. Let's put this in another context. Could any prophet since 1830 to the present foretell what will happen in 4608? That's the measure of Nephi's "visions". A more reasonable option is available, and that's what Ostler called "translator anachronisms", but this negates the idea of a literal history.

"Facts" can be overturned, but how far will we go in this "facts can be overturned" debate? I have my limitations. For example, do you think it likely that we'll find evidence that Adam, the "first man", actually dwelt in Missouri?

D&C 117:

8 Is there not room enough on the mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and on the plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt, that you should covet that which is but the drop, and neglect the more weighty matters?
9 Therefore, come up hither unto the land of my people, even Zion.

Moses 6:

51 And he called upon our father Adam by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh.
52 And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you.
53 And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden.
54 Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.
55 And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.
56 And it is given unto them to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves, and I have given unto you another law and commandment.
57 Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time.

After the fact prophecy is very easy. But the point here is that Adam supposedly had the Gospel!!! The Christian Gospel, contrary to everything we know about the world's religious history.

Let's go on:

65 And thus he was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended upon him, and thus he was born of the Spirit, and became quickened in the inner man.
66 And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from henceforth and forever;

So Adam knew all of this some 4,000 years before Christ was born, and mysteriously, none of this knowledge survived in any form of Judaism, and we don't see it until Christianity emerges, and Christians were first so named at Antioch.

But let's see how far we can go with "facts". One writer observed:

The Indian incarnate God Chrishna, the Hindoos believe, had a virgin mother of the royal race, who was sought to be destroyed in his infancy about nine hundred years before Christ. It appears that he passed his life in working miracles, and preaching, and was so humble as to wash his friends' feet; at length, dying, but rising from the dead, he ascended into heaven in the presence of a multitude."

Do you have any problem accepting that? How different is that to the scenarios presented in the POGP, as far as "believability" is concerned? I submit, Kerry, with respect, that you also have a "belief threshold". I could recount numerous other traditions and beliefs, which historians don't take seriously, and with good cause. A better understanding of this can be gained by reading the works of Joseph Campbell. But to even suggest that mythology might be involved is heretical and blasphemous to true [literal] believers.

One of my favorite biological scientists, Stephen Jay Gould, quite controversial, seriously well informed, astonishingly able to debate and defend his viewpoints of evolution (in fact, it is his arguments that, in large part, convinced me that evolution is really quite accurate and important to understand and worth studying for its own sake, let alone all the other idiot crank theories out there) has noted that "fact does not mean 'absolute certainty.'... [yes I am skipping his evolutionary idea here because I am applying it to your view which I think still has the proper cotext] ..."fact can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'" Hen's Teeth and Horses's Toes, W W Norton & Company, 1983): 254-255. That being said, facts in and of themselves are never final, as Gould's massive and further research went on to prove! He showed that it was perverse to withhold assent on the fact that facts are never the last word. Something always comes up which overturns our worldviews, and which subjects are overturned is absolutely every single one of them.... now that should give us pause.

Have you read Gould's book Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fulness of Life? Gould referred to religous beliefs as "rescue fantasies".

Such compound anxiety about nature and human understanding must generate "rescue fantasies", to cite a catchphrase of contemporary therapy. We long to situate ourselves on a benevolent, warm, furry, encompassing planet, created to provide our material needs, and constructed for our dominion and delectation. Unfortunately this type of pipe dream of succor from the realm of meaning (and therefore under the magisterium of religion) imposes definite and unrealistic demands upon the factual construction of nature (under the magisterium of science)......We are therefore left with no alternative. We must undertake the hardest of all journeys by ourselves: The search for meaning in a place both maximally impenetrable and closest to home - within our own frail being. (Rocks of Ages, p177)

In other words, whatever floats your boat. But don't confuse religious mythology with an empirical search for Truth.

[_harmony]

In other words, whatever floats your boat. But don't confuse religious mythology with an empirical search for Truth.

I am seriously liking the current Ray. ;-)

[_Ray A]

I am seriously liking the current Ray. ;-)

I've actually always felt this way, harmony. Well, I lie. From about 1994. Professor David Wright completely overturned any literal understanding I had of the Book of Mormon.

[_Joey]

For me, however, there must remain a distinction between what is used as evidence to increase our understanding of antiquity as it transpired in Pre-Columbian America,

Which is what we find taught in academic institutions.

and what one is edified by as a matter of faith.

Which is why we only find the works of Clark, Sorenson, and now Welch, on Book of Mormon historicity found at firesides.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Joey's one-note samba continues.

It's nap time!