Are there still liberal Mormons?

[Res Ipsa]

I think there's a pretty strong consensus among New Testament scholars that the gospels were not written by the Apostles and are at least second-hand accounts. If you want the evidence, it's not hard to find.

Putting aside the strong consensus among New Testament scholars claim, because I wasn't referring to the gospels. There is resurrection evidence (evidence that one can reject for sure) about the resurrection preaching, which you can track back to immediately after the crucifixion - Bart Ehrman (a critic) suggests that when Paul had his Jesus appointment on the road to Damascus, there was already data (called the "early creeds" that were later written in the New Testament) about the Death/Deity/Resurrection of Jesus that existed. So, my only point was to say that third hand iron-age accounts from generations after the event is not the entire body of evidence. And there is more - much more that ought to be put on the table. Can it all be rejected? Of course.

No evidence should be rejected. I'd need more detail on what Ehrman is talking about.

[Marcus]

I kind of agree with (2), and count it fairly heavily in the early Christians' favour to show that they at least thought they were being honest.

You could say the same about Bob Lazar's testimony of flying saucers at Area 51. What made Bob so compelling (to people other than me, for instance) is that he knows how to play the part of a credible witness. He gave the perfect walkthrough of a guy encountering a great mystery that unfolded as business-as-usual in a government facility. Where others often have a good start, the fish story gets away from them as they seek attention. Bob still got plenty of attention -- by avoiding attention and carefully selecting opportunities to make a reveal. Someone on this thread suggested that someone else write a timeline down to keep their experiences consistent, and he's done a good job of that.

I think my bottom line here is that to the degree you take it seriously, it's only because you were raised Christian of some kind...

I wad only vaguely aware of Lazar's story, thank you for the reminder. His story is compelling, just as DCP's witnesses appear to be on the surface, but eventually, as was noted in his wiki entry:

"A lot of credible people have looked at Lazar's story and rationally concluded that he made it up."[1]

The same has happened to the Smith story, which is why mopologists have to stick to singing to the choir, in my opinion, and are careful to publish only in places like the peer-review-challenged Interpreter.

Interestingly, I read that even the BYU journals won't publish things like Carmack's Early Modern English stuff, which tells me the fringe is becoming fringe even for TBMs raised in the LDS church.

[MG 2.0]

In this particular situation dealing specifically with the three witnesses to the angel and the plates what would it take for you, living now and looking back, to have a high degree of confidence that not only were they telling the truth as they knew it…but that it WAS the truth?

In other words, what would be your demands…otherwise you’re not going to believe it?

Regards,
MG

The fundamental problem here is that you asking questions that are antithetical to what I think is required to fairly evaluate evidence. It's a type of pre-judging evidence that I haven't actually seen. That's an invitation to bias. Before I look at the evidence, I have no idea what it's going to look like or how it's going all fit together. And that fitting together is an important part of the process. The question is a cool rhetorical device, but it asks an unreasonable and misguided question if one is interested in drawing good conclusions from evidence.

Given the difficulty of reading someone's mind, I would simply assume that the witnesses are telling the truth as they understand it unless there is an evidenced based reason to conclude otherwise.

You're still not, in my opinion, clearly defining the proposition you are evaluating. "Plates" is too general. You are setting yourself up for equivocation if you aren't clear about exactly what it is that you are looking to show. I've already explained that not specifying plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated muddies the exercise. Evidence of "plates" does not advance anything if what you are actually trying to show is specific plates.

So, living now and looking back there is certain degree of uncertainty. And to compound that uncertainty we are also dealing with the supernatural.

I can see why in the mind of someone trained as you are it would be difficult to accept this story without the plates themselves being available for inspection and/or being able to personally interview the witnesses first hand.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

The fundamental problem here is that you asking questions that are antithetical to what I think is required to fairly evaluate evidence. It's a type of pre-judging evidence that I haven't actually seen. That's an invitation to bias. Before I look at the evidence, I have no idea what it's going to look like or how it's going all fit together. And that fitting together is an important part of the process. The question is a cool rhetorical device, but it asks an unreasonable and misguided question if one is interested in drawing good conclusions from evidence.

Given the difficulty of reading someone's mind, I would simply assume that the witnesses are telling the truth as they understand it unless there is an evidenced based reason to conclude otherwise.

You're still not, in my opinion, clearly defining the proposition you are evaluating. "Plates" is too general. You are setting yourself up for equivocation if you aren't clear about exactly what it is that you are looking to show. I've already explained that not specifying plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated muddies the exercise. Evidence of "plates" does not advance anything if what you are actually trying to show is specific plates.

So, living now and looking back there is certain degree of uncertainty. And to compound that uncertainty we are also dealing with the supernatural.

I can see why in the mind of someone trained as you are it would be difficult to accept this story without the plates themselves being available for inspection and/or being able to personally interview the witnesses first hand.

Regards,
MG

Well, now you’re simply telling me what I’m demanding, despite my explanation of why it’s a bad question. There goal is neither to accept nor to reject the story. It’s to make a sincere attempt to figure out what likely happened and how confident that conclusion should be.

[MG 2.0]

I think I would be in the same camp if it wasn’t for the Book of Mormon and the restoration narrative.

Really? You would reject the resurrection claim if not for the Book of Mormon?

Forgive my ignorance when it come to the Book of Mormon: What, in the Book of Mormon, lends additional support directly to the resurrection claim?

It’s questionable whether I would have ever gotten that far. As do others here, I have a natural bent towards skepticism. If my life path had not intersected with the Book of Mormon it’s difficult to know what I would have even entertained as far as religious impulses.

But a real look at the Book of Mormon didn’t come until later for me. So as it was, I was somewhat skeptical of the church and religion in general for quite a few years. It wasn’t that I disbelieved in the resurrection it’s just that I didn’t have any overwhelming reason to be totally on board with that possibility.

Joseph Smith taught that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of Mormonism. That through this book we can come closer to Christ and have a greater faith/hope in his mission. The Book of Mormon is what brought me to the Bible. It’s difficult to say if I would have without the path I took through the Book of Mormon.

It’s very possible that if I hadn’t gone this path and I was raised in a Christian context or had Christian friends that got me to read the Bible I may have developed faith. But again, it’s questionable. I tend to go materialistic/scientific/humanist unless I have pretty good reason not to do so.

The Book of Mormon and its teachings turned me towards Christ in a way that I’m not sure would have happened if my life path had connected only with the Bible first or only.

But it’s hard to say. My thinking is that God leads us each individually along a path that gives us the opportunity to accept ‘truth’ to one degree or another. Whatever we are willing to live by, understand, and obey.

We are all so different and what’s good for one may not be good for another.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

So, living now and looking back there is certain degree of uncertainty. And to compound that uncertainty we are also dealing with the supernatural.

I can see why in the mind of someone trained as you are it would be difficult to accept this story without the plates themselves being available for inspection and/or being able to personally interview the witnesses first hand.

Regards,
MG

Well, now you’re simply telling me what I’m demanding, despite my explanation of why it’s a bad question. There goal is neither to accept nor to reject the story. It’s to make a sincere attempt to figure out what likely happened and how confident that conclusion should be.

At the end of the day I guess I’m asking what would it actually take for you to believe?

Regards,
MG

[ceeboo]

Putting aside the strong consensus among New Testament scholars claim, because I wasn't referring to the gospels. There is resurrection evidence (evidence that one can reject for sure) about the resurrection preaching, which you can track back to immediately after the crucifixion - Bart Ehrman (a critic) suggests that when Paul had his Jesus appointment on the road to Damascus, there was already data (called the "early creeds" that were later written in the New Testament) about the Death/Deity/Resurrection of Jesus that existed. So, my only point was to say that third hand iron-age accounts from generations after the event is not the entire body of evidence. And there is more - much more that ought to be put on the table. Can it all be rejected? Of course.

No evidence should be rejected. I'd need more detail on what Ehrman is talking about.

Perhaps I am not being clear. I will try to add clarity.

I was originally responding to the following specifically about the resurrection: "If someone is going to claim a bloke in the Middle East came back from the dead, I’m going to need more than third hand iron-age hearsay from generations after the event supposedly happened." that someone else posted.

I was suggesting "third hand iron-age hearsay from generations after the supposed event" is hardly the body of evidence that can be put forward about the resurrection. Then you and I began an exchange where I suggested that one example (of many in my opinion) of evidence for the resurrection is concerning "early creeds" that were later written in scripture.

If you're interested, there is ton of scholarly discussion/debate around these "early creeds" - To be fair, there are challenges put forth against this early creedal evidence.

In short: It has to do with when 1 Corinthians was written. Most scholars (secular and believing) agree that it was written in the mid 50's, after Paul's first missionary trip to Corinth around 51AD. First Corinthians chapter 15, verses 3-8, is generally agreed to be written a decade or more before Paul’s writing of First Corinthians. So, again, in short, this would place the date of 1st Corinthain 15:3-8 just a few years after the crucifixion - around 33AD- Or so the argument goes. Here is the relevant passage.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
English Standard Version
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

[MG 2.0]

In short: It has to do with when 1 Corinthians was written. Most scholars (secular and believing) agree that it was written in the mid 50's, after Paul's first missionary trip to Corinth around 51AD. First Corinthians chapter 15, verses 3-8, is generally agreed to be written a decade or more before Paul’s writing of First Corinthians. So, again, in short, this would place the date of 1st Corinthain 15:3-8 just a few years after the crucifixion - around 33AD- Or so the argument goes. Here is the relevant passage.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
English Standard Version
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

That’s super interesting.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Well, now you’re simply telling me what I’m demanding, despite my explanation of why it’s a bad question. There goal is neither to accept nor to reject the story. It’s to make a sincere attempt to figure out what likely happened and how confident that conclusion should be.

At the end of the day I guess I’m asking what would it actually take for you to believe?

Regards,
MG

How would I know? When I was a believer, I couldn’t imagine not being one. Now that I’m not a believer, I can’t imagine being one again. I don’t have checklist of things it would take to persuade me to rejoin Mormonism. I’m perfectly happy with my stance toward the COJCOLDS, and see no need to devote time and effort into second guessing my stance. There same is true for every other flavor of religion. Doing my best to be a good husband, father, son, brother, friend and sentient bit of carbon is a full time job. That’s what I try to do. I’m perfectly happy with that.

Perhaps that will change and I’ll discover that I believe in some flavor of deity and join some flavor of religion. Who knows? But I have no idea how that would come about, so how in the world would have the first idea of what it would take?

So, you’ve asked me a question for which I have no answer. Nor do I have the first idea how I would go about figuring out an answer or why I would spend time trying to answer it.

Look, asking you the reciprocal would be an bad question also. Are you happy being a Mormon? Do you think that being a Mormon helps you be a better fellow sentient bit of carbon. If the answer to both questions is “yes,” which I’m pretty sure it is, then why in the world would I want to take that away from you? Why would it even same for me to expect you have some kind of list of the criteria that would lead you give up something that you think makes you happy and a better person. Seriously, who does that?

[Res Ipsa]

No evidence should be rejected. I'd need more detail on what Ehrman is talking about.

Perhaps I am not being clear. I will try to add clarity.

I was originally responding to the following specifically about the resurrection: "If someone is going to claim a bloke in the Middle East came back from the dead, I’m going to need more than third hand iron-age hearsay from generations after the event supposedly happened." that someone else posted.

I was suggesting "third hand iron-age hearsay from generations after the supposed event" is hardly the body of evidence that can be put forward about the resurrection. Then you and I began an exchange where I suggested that one example (of many in my opinion) of evidence for the resurrection is concerning "early creeds" that were later written in scripture.

If you're interested, there is ton of scholarly discussion/debate around these "early creeds" - To be fair, there are challenges put forth against this early creedal evidence.

In short: It has to do with when 1 Corinthians was written. Most scholars (secular and believing) agree that it was written in the mid 50's, after Paul's first missionary trip to Corinth around 51AD. First Corinthians chapter 15, verses 3-8, is generally agreed to be written a decade or more before Paul’s writing of First Corinthians. So, again, in short, this would place the date of 1st Corinthain 15:3-8 just a few years after the crucifixion - around 33AD- Or so the argument goes. Here is the relevant passage.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
English Standard Version
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Got it. I’m have done some reading on that verse. Thanks.