Givens and Doxastic Voluntarism

[Guest]

Rather, Givens seems to think that when the available evidence is just so such that the evidence itself doesn't compel one way or another one can choose to have a belief one way or another.

Among the problems in this line of thought is the huge question being begged by Givens (and others) about the claimed evidence for and against being essentially 50/50. The problem becomes much worse when you realize that what Givens claims to be evidence in favor of LDS truth claims would not be interpreted that way by anyone who was not already invested in believing that the Church is true. Givens is not looking at evidence to find the answer to a question. He is looking for evidence to arrive at a foregone conclusion.

Oh, I agree. And it's worse than that his claimed evidence would not be interpreted the way he does by people not already invested in that interpretation - the evidence is in fact not interpreted that way by people not already invested in that interpretation.

I attended a presentation he gave at a ward building here in Richmond a year or so ago and he had a section on Book of Mormon evidence. The strongest one (his claim) was NHM and he said, with no qualification, that the alter's inscription translated to "Nahom".

[_Darth J]

I attended a presentation he gave at a ward building here in Richmond a year or so ago and he had a section Book of Mormon evidence. The strongest one (his claim) was NHM and he said, with no qualification, that the alter's inscription translated to "Nahom".

This is my favorite, because:

1. the existence of Nephi and the existence of Cthulhu are on equal evidentiary footing; and

2. each of the different NHM's touted in the Ensign have been declared to be strong evidence of the Book of Mormon's historicity.

[_mms]

If Givens does embrace DDV, and we assume it's true, what reason is there for us to voluntarily choose Mormon beliefs over other religious beliefs?

This is what I have been asking my friends for years, now. They all claim that ultimately you have to "choose" to believe, even though it seems rather evident that the church is not what it claims to be. I always follow up with, well, then why should I choose Mormonism? And if I choose not to choose it, you shouldn't be upset with me, right? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggghhhhhhhhtttttt.

[_Kishkumen]

I like Terryl Givens. He can come off as a little precious for my tastes, however. Sometimes I almost get the feeling that he is aspiring to be the C.S. Lewis of Mormonism, which, given the LDS affection for Lewis, would make Givens a powerful player indeed. Still, he strikes me as a highly intelligent, interesting, and cool guy. I like a lot of what he has to say, and I think his book on anti-Mormonism was persuasive.

That said, I really didn't like By the Hand of Mormon, which I found to be very misleading on this issue of the case in favor of an ancient Book of Mormon. Simply put, the case is not that good, but, as Givens stacked the deck, mostly by assertion, he made it sound as though it were quite persuasive indeed.

It simply is not.

It's time to drop the bad defense for the ancient Book of Mormon and find another, more workable way of treating the text as sacred scripture. LGT is about as credible, in my view, as LST (my joke: Limited Stature Theory).


Caption: the young Terryl Givens marvels at the Lamanite in his cupboard.

[_brade]

I like Terryl Givens. He can come off as a little precious for my tastes, however. Sometimes I almost get the feeling that he is aspiring to be the C.S. Lewis of Mormonism, which, given the LDS affection for Lewis, would make Givens a powerful player indeed. Still, he strikes me as a highly intelligent, interesting, and cool guy. I like a lot of what he has to say, and I think his book on anti-Mormonism was persuasive.

That said, I really didn't like By the Hand of Mormon, which I found to be very misleading on this issue of the case in favor of an ancient Book of Mormon. Simply put, the case is not that good, but, as Givens stacked the deck, mostly by assertion, he made it sound as though it were quite persuasive indeed.

It simply is not.

It's time to drop the bad defense for the ancient Book of Mormon and find another, more workable way of treating the text as sacred scripture. LGT is about as credible, in my view, as LST (my joke: Limited Stature Theory).


Caption: the young Terryl Givens marvels at the Lamanite in his cupboard.

The fact is, Mormonism asks people to believe lots of things with far less evidentiary support than the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I don't understand why so much fuss is made on this ground. Why not just concede the point, that, yes, the evidence isn't good. But, so what when you've got the evidence of the Holy Spirit?

[_Kishkumen]

The fact is, Mormonism asks people to believe lots of things with far less evidentiary support than the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I don't understand why so much fuss is made on this ground. Why not just concede the point, that, yes, the evidence isn't good. But, so what when you've got the evidence of the Holy Spirit?

Well, I think it is because doing so, in their minds, would be tantamount to denying the resurrection of Christ, at least in historical terms. They view the real significance of the Book of Mormon to be its confirming historical witness of the resurrected Christ. Of course, the prophet Joseph Smith also saw Christ. And, I think that in the time-tested manner of other prophets, the Book of Mormon was his inspired way of conveying his prophetic message by attributing it to ancient figures. This is how much of the Bible came to be. Why the Book of Mormon should be any less legitimate than the Bible, when it is doing exactly the same thing, is beyond me.