sock puppet wrote:True. I think it more amazing that the great Professor Tolkein wrote the Lord of the Rings books than JSJr concocted the Book of Mormon. The Lord of the Rings is beyond even a genius capacity. The Book of Mormon, hmmm.
Comparisons between Joseph Smith and Tolkien have zero credibility, not only because of age and the length of production time, but educational differences between them. The Tolkien/Smith comparison is irrelevant and just worn out.
Even taking those difference factors into account as different baselines for the two authors, Lord of the Rings is an amazing feat for their author compared to the ho-hum Book of Mormon by JSJr.
To speak to one thing that bothers me, perhaps more than anything else, about about a lot of LDS apologetics, it's that it can often be reduced to saying something that fits the form "X doesn't prove that Y didn't happen; therefore, it's possible that Y happened". I feel like a lot of apologetics involves a lot of words in order get to that point and then stops at pointing out what, it seems to me, should be obvious to people thinking seriously about these things - that it really is possible that, say, the Book of Mormon is, among other things, a mostly accurate record events.
There's is too often a failure to do the really difficult work of making a case for why anyone ought to bother taking this particular possibility seriously. Part of the problem, I suspect, is that spiritual experience is too tempting a fruit not to be plucked for this purpose. So, we're taken on a long ride to get to "so, see, it's possible", and then we're dropped off at, "but, here's the thing, God doesn't want the evidence to be compelling". What seems to be implied is that something's merely being possible is enough because, in the end, the only way to come to sincerely believe is by God telling you himself through divine means.
Now, maybe that is the way that it is, and, truly, the intellect can go no further. My response, then, is that's unfortunately not good enough. I know how that sounds to religious ears, but I don't know how else to put it. The world is drowning in mere possibilities, to say nothing of the religious world. Why should I grace this particular mere possibility, or set of possibilities, with my mental energy to the end of possible commitment? Or, even more importantly (I think), and prior to all this historical stuff, why should I take religious epistemology seriously?
I recently told Terryl Givens that I think that - the epistemological battleground - is where apologists ought to be spending their time, and not as much on all this historical nit-picking. Because if the sort of epistemological methodology advocated by the church can be defended more robustly, then I think you'd have more people staying on spiritual grounds, even if they're aware of all the historical controversies and think that the historical stuff weighs negatively against belief.
If you sincerely believe that God has told you such and such is true, then, evidence to the contrary be damned, you're probably going to stick around. This is in fact true for lots of faithful and well informed active Mormons by my own experience. Even in my own case, I stuck around for the better part of a decade on the chance that I would find the epistemology more defensible. When I finally admitted to myself that the fact that after giving it so much thought for so long I found it neither compelling nor sufficiently defensible was a good enough reason for rejecting it as a matter of practical decision and commitment making, and belief formation, I was forced to assess the best available historical evidence (and by extension, the apologetics) without it; and the fact is that even if the evidence is just so 50/50 to preserve free agency (a proposition I've always rejected, even at my most committed), that simply isn't good enough for belief and commitment given the extent of commitment required.
I typically don't go around telling people I think Mormonism is false or that I'm certain Joseph Smith didn't see God, or that it must be the case that he, or he and a bunch of somebodies, made up the Book of Mormon; because I don't think those things. For me, it's a serious commitment, I don't accept the sort of epistemological method I'm told I must, and the evidence, even if it's just so, isn't sufficient to warrant active participation of the sort that's expected. That's the sum of it.
brade wrote: I recently told Terryl Givens that I think that - the epistemological battleground - is where apologists ought to be spending their time, and not as much on all this historical nit-picking. Because if the sort of epistemological methodology advocated by the church can be defended more robustly, then I think you'd have more people staying on spiritual grounds, even if they're aware of all the historical controversies and think that the historical stuff weighs negatively against belief.
If you sincerely believe that God has told you such and such is true, then, evidence to the contrary be damned, you're probably going to stick around. This is in fact true for lots of faithful and well informed active Mormons by my own experience. Even in my own case, I stuck around for the better part of a decade on the chance that I would find the epistemology more defensible. When I finally admitted to myself that the fact that after giving it so much thought for so long I found it neither compelling nor sufficiently defensible was a good enough reason for rejecting it as a matter of practical decision and commitment making, and belief formation, I was forced to assess the best available historical evidence (and by extension, the apologetics) without it; and the fact is that even if the evidence is just so 50/50 to preserve free agency (a proposition I've always rejected, even at my most committed), that simply isn't good enough for belief and commitment given the extent of commitment required.
It's quite a good explanation. That's pretty much where I've been for the last 25 years.
brade wrote:I recently told Terryl Givens that I think that - the epistemological battleground - is where apologists ought to be spending their time, and not as much on all this historical nit-picking. Because if the sort of epistemological methodology advocated by the church can be defended more robustly, then I think you'd have more people staying on spiritual grounds, even if they're aware of all the historical controversies and think that the historical stuff weighs negatively against belief.
I agree with you that it would help for them to spend more time on such issues. Still, I think history could play a much more positive role. The problem is that too many LDS historians and the historians among the critics are stuck in outmoded historical conversations. Even the best LDS historians like Bushman strike me as behind the curve in certain respects. In contrast I would offer Samuel Morris Brown's new book, In Heaven as It is on Earth: Joseph Smith and the Early Mormon Conquest of Death. Read in particular his discussion of Smith's treasure digging. His is an approach that strives to understand what was going on without justifying or savaging the people and events.
Regardless of what one thinks of the treasure situation, the way in which digging for lost treasure transitioned into a full-blown religious tradition is mysterious. Most Mormons have, up to this point, been incapable of grappling with all of the implications of the relationship between treasure and the Book of Mormon out of fear. Most critics stop at saying, "Oh yeah, I knew this was all BS." So glad that they have reaffirmed their personal choices, but that does not good history make. It does not help us understand Joseph Smith, his family and associates, and what they were up to.
By contrast, Brown comes closest to providing a fulsome understanding of the whys. Here you can get a sense of what it all meant to the people engaged in the effort and you can appreciate why it is that prevailing contemporary views are so distorted and plain wrong.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Paul John the Evangelists Clement Ignatius Letter of Barnabas The Didache Polycarp Justin Martyr Abericuius Irenaeus Clement Tertullian Perpetua Hippolytus Origen
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
To speak to one thing that bothers me, perhaps more than anything else, about about a lot of LDS apologetics, it's that it can often be reduced to saying something that fits the form "X doesn't prove that Y didn't happen; therefore, it's possible that Y happened".
I agree with this. In fact, I've been saying this for quite some time. The issue is, from a defender's position, the critic is trying to prove the believer position wrong--why else are they offering critical arguments. My position is based on faith and what others would term subjective personal opinion. To me my position is one of relying heavily on spiritual experience--and that experience is real. So when critical arguments contain holes, then the critic hasn't proven his case, even if their argument comes out, when weighed against all other possibilities, most reasonable. That's what gets me. The critic is so critical of defenders because they maintain belief because their arguments, though often reasonable do not disprove faith. Yeah yeah, so there is not a lot of evidence for the believer position on the Book of Mormon. So? My evidence is something I can't show you--it's internal and in a sense other worldly. Thus, to argue, the believers position on the book can't be taken seriously because there is not enough evidence to support it, the believer is rightly left with a "So?" in response. It certainly doesn't mean it's not possible. The critic is then left with nothing, essentially. Sure the critic will suggest the believer's claimed experiences may not be real...but then again, so? The critic is left with nothing in this area as well.
In a way, I feel for you guys in that you have an endless hill to climb. There is no end.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
brade wrote:I recently told Terryl Givens that I think that - the epistemological battleground - is where apologists ought to be spending their time, and not as much on all this historical nit-picking.
Midgley took a couple of stabs at epistemology. One a long time ago in a Sunstone article on post-modernism and Mormon historiography and his more recent MI article developing Martin Marty's article on Mormon historiography.
So rather looking for a Hebrew Scriptures scholar to take on Isaiah, why isn't MI looking for someone with a strong background in historiographical epistemology? It ain't Midgley.
Last edited by Guest on Thu May 24, 2012 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
Sure sign of the apocolypse. Stak, Kish, brade, Ray and Stem all on the same page. Come sweet Jesus, we're ready for you.
If Ray and I agree on one more thing, we have to start kissing each other on both cheeks when we meet.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
To speak to one thing that bothers me, perhaps more than anything else, about about a lot of LDS apologetics, it's that it can often be reduced to saying something that fits the form "X doesn't prove that Y didn't happen; therefore, it's possible that Y happened".
I agree with this. In fact, I've been saying this for quite some time. The issue is, from a defender's position, the critic is trying to prove the believer position wrong--why else are they offering critical arguments. My position is based on faith and what others would term subjective personal opinion. To me my position is one of relying heavily on spiritual experience--and that experience is real. So when critical arguments contain holes, then the critic hasn't proven his case, even if their argument comes out, when weighed against all other possibilities, most reasonable. That's what gets me. The critic is so critical of defenders because they maintain belief because their arguments, though often reasonable do not disprove faith. Yeah yeah, so there is not a lot of evidence for the believer position on the Book of Mormon. So? My evidence is something I can't show you--it's internal and in a sense other worldly. Thus, to argue, the believers position on the book can't be taken seriously because there is not enough evidence to support it, the believer is rightly left with a "So?" in response. It certainly doesn't mean it's not possible. The critic is then left with nothing, essentially. Sure the critic will suggest the believer's claimed experiences may not be real...but then again, so? The critic is left with nothing in this area as well.
In a way, I feel for you guys in that you have an endless hill to climb. There is no end.
I remember you being the king of possibilities no matter how unreasonable. You always loved the possibility game. We all knew as kish has brought up that many will go with their feelings over facts. I have had this observation on many issues that are not religious, where people will ignore facts and evidence and go with how they feel or what there guts tells them.
Themis wrote: I remember you being the king of possibilities no matter how unreasonable. You always loved the possibility game. We all knew as kish has brought up that many will go with their feelings over facts. I have had this observation on many issues that are not religious, where people will ignore facts and evidence and go with how they feel or what there guts tells them.
Welcome to religious discussion, dude. The best it seems that people can come up with is, "you're wrong because you rely on feelings more than the facts I rely on." I'm not relying on feelings, per se. And you aren't relying on facts per se. It's a bit of mix for the both of us. Additionally what you characterize as my feelings are more than just feelings. There is something real to me--it is data that I would call facts. Go ahead and tell me they aren't facts. That destroys it all for me.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
I remember you being the king of possibilities no matter how unreasonable. You always loved the possibility game. We all knew as kish has brought up that many will go with their feelings over facts. I have had this observation on many issues that are not religious, where people will ignore facts and evidence and go with how they feel or what there guts tells them.