[Note: Like the previous two letters in this series, a draft of the following was written between my first and second meetings with the LDS missionaries. I wrote the three letters because writing helps me to get clarity about what I'm thinking and also because I hope to inspire good conversation. My intention is to gain greater understanding by raising sincere questions about things that don't make sense to me in a way that is respectful and not bashing. I hope I have succeeded in maintaining such an attitude here.]
Dear Mormon Missionaries,
When we met the first time a few weeks ago, I asked the two of you how you make sense of LDS incongruities with historic Christianity as well as apparent inconsistencies within LDS history.
Given these apparent incongruities and inconsistencies, I asked, how did you come to believe that Mormonism is the true faith?
At the time, you gave a very interesting answer: Elder B said he prayed and had a supernatural experience that seemed to confirm the Mormon faith to him. This is an answer I have heard on several occasions from LDS representatives.
And after your experience, I wanted to know, did you also come to answers or explanations of the doctrinal incongruities. Neither of you had come to nor were able to give answers or explanations at the time for the incongruities I described.
I asked if that bothered either of you that there were significant incongruities within and without for which you could give no account.
Elder A explained that Latter Day Saints teachings are a matter primarily of faith and not of reasoning.
If it’s a matter of a personal faith experience, I wondered, how do you adjudicate the contradictory claims of such subjective religious experience? For example, I pointed out that individuals of various faiths have personal mystical experiences that, in their minds, confirm the validity of their respective religions.
How would you recommend the Mormon faith to me when others could recommend faiths as diverse as Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism to me each on the same basis of their own personal faith experiences? We also factored in my own religious experiences that seem to confirm for me the faith that I currently hold.
Why should I accept Mormonism on the basis of your experience?
Of course, you didn't want me to accept it on the basis of your experience; you wanted me to read the book of Mormon myself and pray and ask God to show me if it were true.
I wanted to know why should I spend time reading the Book of Mormon, when I currently have little reason for thinking that it is true and several reasons to suspect that it is false including my own religious experiences within my current faith tradition?
We agreed that neither you nor I felt compelled to read the Koran and pray and ask God if it were true in order to rule out the Muslim faith for ourselves. Is this a double standard?
I suggested that it would be reasonable to expect you to first provide me some reasons to think that Mormonism is true such that I would be motivated to continue to investigate. You agreed.
Christianity, after all, is the religion of evidence, firmly and inextricably rooted in the history of time and place. The Gospels tell us that Jesus was born in the days of “Caesar Augustus . . . while Quirinius was governor of Syria,” and that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. The names, the times, the places are all independently verifiable historical facts.
In this vein, Saint Paul makes it clear that Christian belief is based on the historical evidence of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Saint Paul makes reference to more than 500 eyewitnesses, contemporary with his original epistolary audience, to corroborate the veracity of the resurrection and concludes that, if the evidence is faulty and the history inaccurate,
if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, [. . .] and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. [. . .] If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. (1 Corinthians 15:3-19, esp. vs. 14-19)
I find what Saint Paul says as interesting as what he does not say. Why does he not simply urge his readers to pray and ask God to reveal to them whether Christianity is true and whether Jesus rose from the dead (or remind them of such personal experience that they may have had at conversion)? Certainly God has the power to give direct special revelation to whomever he chooses. So why would God's chosen apostle Paul—who himself had received a powerful direct revelation of the resurrected Christ—present an argument from eyewitness testimony/historical evidence?
This is the same Paul who draws on the sacred and secular traditions of his various audiences in order to present sophisticated and compelling arguments for the faith. For example, in Acts 15, Saint Paul uses different apologetic approaches with different groups. First he goes to the Jewish synagogues in Thessalonica and Berea and "reasoned with them out of the scriptures [the Old Testament Law and Prophets], opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead" (Acts 15:2b-3a). In Athens, in contrast, Saint Paul "disputed [. . .] daily with them that met with him" (15:17), eventually presenting a philosophical argument in Mars' hill wherein he cited the Greeks' own religious and literary traditions in order to make his case (15:22-31).
In light of an apparent apostolic tradition of missionary work that unites both reasoning and faith, why do Mormon missionaries seem to emphasize the latter in contrast with the former?
When I met with you for the second time (by appointment) and third time (by happenstance), you maintained a position of faith on the basis of your personal religious experiences and the claims of Joseph Smith and did not have any further explanations for the incongruities I had wondered about. Since it is the claims of Joseph Smith that are under consideration, it would be rather circular for me to believe that his testimony and revelations are true because he says they are. So that leaves subjective religious experience as the recommended basis for belief.
You explained that, as missionaries, you are trained to lead people in the process of pondering and praying and that you are not equipped to provide (or perhaps even interested in providing) other evidences or answers to questions such as mine. (I also note that you do not have access to the Internet during your mission and therefore cannot do any independent research on questions that are raised in your conversations. Why is this?) I expressed sincere sadness that your missionary training and approach would be what seems to me, rather one-sided.
The God I know from Scriptures, from Christian tradition, and from my own experience, is a God who created and values all my various capacities, who invites me to engage with him fully, completely, and holistically with all that I am. Faith and reason are not at odds with each other in God’s orderly cosmos. It seems to me, then, that subjective religious experience is a necessary but not a sufficient ground for faith and belief.
I expressed that, while God is ultimately a mystery and faith is essential to our relationship with him, I am uncomfortable with any religion that asks me to leave my mind or “logic” at the door.
At the end of our first meeting, I told you honestly that your appeal to pray and ask God if Mormonism were true felt somewhat manipulative to me; although I am sure that was not your intention. For me to pray that prayer would seem to me to be insulting God by second-guessing the natural and supernatural revelations he has already made plan to me.
If I perceive significant objections to Mormonism and I currently experience God in my present faith while also having good reasons for believing as I do, why would I ask God if something contradictory is true? Wouldn’t that be akin to asking God to reveal to me whether 2 + 2 equals 5? He has already revealed to me through the natural revelation of reason that 2 + 2 equals 4, and that, therefore, it does not equal 5.
Why don’t Mormon missionaries simply pray that God would grant us wisdom and guide us into all truth? Why aren’t Mormon missionaries trained and equipped to provide corroborating evidence that LDS claims are true?
In any other area of life, wouldn't I be considered imprudent if I formed beliefs on the basis of personal phenomenology to the exclusion of other evidence? Why would we think that our process of belief formation in the area of religion would be fundamentally different from how we form beliefs in the rest of life? Using reason seems one important way we are to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1).
When I ask for corroborating external evidence, I am perplexed when no such evidence is provided. I am doubly perplexed when I am then cautioned against over-relying on reason or logic or being “carnally minded.” Surely you would not say that Saint Paul was being carnally minded when he presented arguments and evidence that his audiences would understand and find compelling?
If I discover reasons to suppose that my current beliefs are false or inadequate and that the LDS church offers a truer picture, I will pursue it.
So I continue to ask my third and final question: What corroborating evidence or reasons are there, besides personal experience, for thinking that the Mormon faith is true? For example, are there corroborating reasons to suspect the early Church experienced apostasy? Is there any archeological, historical, or DNA evidence to support the historicity of the stories recorded in the Book of Mormon? Is there external (non-LDS) corroborating evidence to show that the “reformed Egyptian” manuscript Joseph Smith used as his source for the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price is correctly translated? Etc. If my current beliefs are false, I want to change them and conform myself to the truth.
I want to be quick to reiterate what I have said a few times during our discussions: while I have questions and doubts about the LDS faith, I am not attacking any LDS members personally. I deeply sympathize with where you are at and respect the good will and zeal that motivates you to serve God and practice the faith that you've been taught. Every Mormon believer I know is warm, generous, and friendly. I am fortunate to have several Mormon neighbors who make living where I do very pleasant. I am grateful to be able to share many familial and social/civic values with the LDS community and am glad to work together on matters of mutual concern politically and around the neighborhood.
As we ended our third conversation, Elder A said that he loved the Book of Mormon, and I believe that love is real and sincere. As I said when we parted, if you truly believe that Jesus is there in his fullness in the Mormon faith, that is where you should be.
I cannot know to what degree your belief is honest and well-founded, but I am sure that what it means to have well-founded belief changes as we mature and age and encounter new evidences for and against our beliefs. A child is certainly justified in believing what his parents teach him simply on the basis of it coming from them. Adult belief, in contrast, requires further justification.
I believed you when you said that you were on a journey and that you intend to learn more and more about what you believe and why. Such an attitude is commendable, and I hope that I, and everyone who reads this letter, will embrace the same in our own lives.
I do enjoy debating and sparing, but our conversation is not about that; it's about what is true. It is a discussion worth having because what is at stake is, well, everything of value in this world and the next.
Yours in Christ,
Jen
Pardon me for intruding on your space, but having gone through a similar quest for religious "answers", I'd like to make a comment.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in the end all religions by necessity have to approached as a matter of faith rather than logic since they all have aspects that cannot be defined by logical means.
Because religions are illogical in many aspects, the use of apologetics becomes necessary to try and reconcile the faith with the reason.
For example one (of many) Christian apologetic websites is:
http://ldolphin.org/contradict.html
(I use this as an example because it has short, concise explanations.
I suspect because you are comfortable with your beliefs, these "problems" with the Bible do not sway you from it.
There is a similar site for LDS apologetics:
http://fairlds.org
where one can find explanatory articles on any of the topics that you have raised during your discussions with the Mormon missionaries.
While there are many church members interested in the apologetics of their religion, missionaries are sent out to find those seeking and prepared to receive their message. They don't have the time, inclination or often, the knowledge, to wrestle with those desiring a deeper analysis with perceived problems with the religion.
Missionaries emphasize praying to know truth, because that is the way to communicate directly with God - absent the filter of someone elses thoughts, writings and opinions.
Finally, the real question with Mormonism is that of the Book of Mormon. It either came to be as Joseph Smith described, or it didn't. It exists. The plates from which it came were seen and handled by eleven other reputable men, two of which also testified that an angel spoke to them. Even though some of them left the church, they all maintained what they saw and heard their entire lives. If the book is what it purports to be, that settles the other arguments. If not, the other issues don't really matter.
Jen, this all just begs the question of why you accept the Bible as valid in the first place.
ReplyDeleteDavid, thanks for commenting!
ReplyDeleteI agree that Christianity (and all religion) is ultimately a matter of faith. We cannot simply reason our way to Jesus; we need special Divine revelation (e.g., the Bible, holy tradition, personal epiphanies), and we need faith arising from a personal relationship with God in Christ. Such a relationship of faith is not merely, or primarily, cerebral.
What I don’t understand, however, is why you see faith and reason as being opposed to each other rather than complementary. I’m not sure why you think “religions are illogical” or why you say they “all have aspects that cannot be defined by logical means.”
Given your understanding of the disjoint between faith and reason, I can see why you might say that apologetics is a (floundering?) attempt to reconcile the faith with reason.
Since I don’t see faith and reason as contradictory, I understand apologetics differently than you do. I see the proper role of apologetics as being twofold: (1) to clear the way for faith by removing intellectual objections and (2) to strengthen the faith of the believers by providing additional justification for belief.
I am curious why you did not reply to any of the specific questions or to the missionary example of Saint Paul that I raise in my post above. I’m having trouble seeing how your views on faith, reason, apologetics, and missionary work fit with the New Testament passages I reference.
(tbc)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteAs to the specific issue you raise about “problems” with the Bible . . . I do find several passages in Scripture to be disturbing and perplexing. I am not at all “comfortable” leaving it there, however. I believe it my duty, as a mature adult believer and representative of the Christian faith, to study and learn about these matters in order to strengthen my faith and to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).
A brief glance at your Christian apologetic link makes me think the authors are attempting to sustain the view that the Bible is “literally true in all its details.” That is one of many ways to understand biblical inerrancy and Divine inspiration. I do not hold that view.
I believe such a view demeans the Bible by treating it with less respect than would be given to any other literary work. For example, interpreting the Bible should involve attending to the genres of the various books; the respective modes of interpretation unique to each genre; the different historical contexts in which the books were written, compiled, and canonized; the intent of the respective authors, compilers, and canonizers; and so forth.
While the central message of the Bible is accessible to any sincere reader, the cultural and linguistic barriers of geography and several centuries of intervening history can make nuances of meaning cloudy to the average lay reader. I am therefore of the opinion that interpreting the Bible outside of and independent from the interpretive tradition of the Church is a poor idea.
When the Christian interpretive tradition (which includes extensive biblical scholarship) is the reference point, however, the perplexing passages are often much less troubling. This is an example of reason being put to use in the service of faith rather than faith flying blind in the face of reason.
When you say,
“the real question with Mormonism is that of the Book of Mormon [. . .] If the book is what it purports to be, that settles the other arguments. If not, the other issues don’t really matter”
I wonder how you propose that we answer that question. How do we decide whether the book is what it purports to be?
If you say ponder and pray, I submit to you my post above and wonder how you would answer the specific questions and counter examples I raise.
If you say by testing its claims against the body of knowledge we have from both special Divine revelation and the natural revelation of reason, then we agree and my final question still stands: What reasons do we have to think that the Book of Mormon is a true account of historical events?
Seth,
ReplyDeleteI don't see what you're seeing about the Bible. Perhaps my comments to David clarify my position on that.
Jen, my point is that when you strip it down to basics, the reasons that Protestants, Catholics and other Christians believe in the Bible are little different than the reasons Mormons believe in the Book of Mormon.
ReplyDeleteSeth,
ReplyDeleteI don't know what reasons Mormons have for believing in the Book of Mormon besides subjective faith experience. If that is the only basis for their belief, which, as I say, I don't know, then it is not the same basis as the traditional, apostolic Christian basis for belief as I understand it from within my tradition.
I often get Christians trying to tell me that their faith is based in historical evidence, while mine is based purely in "warm fuzzies" or whatever.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is, there is just as little objective historical/archeological evidence for the Bible's FAITH claims as there is for the Book of Mormon.
Which seems to indicate to me that your faith is based in pretty much the same things as Mormons.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteI fear this thread of comments is quickly degenerating into an "unproductive back and forth."
Perhaps I've got you wrong, but it seems you want to make the general assertion that I have no reasons to support my faith, and, at the same time, you do not seem interested in responding to any of my particular questions or counter examples.
Perhaps then we can agree to disagree.
You would be drawing the wrong conclusion. I would consider you to have great reason for faith in the Bible. Just as I have many reasons for faith in the Book of Mormon and the Bible.
ReplyDeleteIt's just they aren't primarily grounded in history or archeological evidence.
That's a foundation of sand.
As for counterexamples, were you referring to this paragraph in the original post?
"What corroborating evidence or reasons are there, besides personal experience, for thinking that the Mormon faith is true? For example, are there corroborating reasons to suspect the early Church experienced apostasy? Is there any archeological, historical, or DNA evidence to support the historicity of the stories recorded in the Book of Mormon? Is there external (non-LDS) corroborating evidence to show that the “reformed Egyptian” manuscript Joseph Smith used as his source for the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price is correctly translated?"
Thanks for allowing me to respond. First I’d like to try and clear up the main points of my initial comment. The main point was to provide what I believe to be the reason the missionaries are reluctant to respond to your questions. The second was to give you the link to a website that I have found useful in answering the kind of questions and concerns you are voicing. I hesitated to take up too much of your space responding in detail to the questions you pose, but I would be happy to, if you’d like to enter into that type of dialog.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the first question you posed was, “I would honestly like to know how you explain the disjuncture between the doctrine and discipline of the LDS church, on the one hand, and traditional Christianity on the other hand.”
My explanation of the disjuncture is that I believe that traditional Christianity is not the same as original Christianity. I believe that Christ established a church and a structure and a pattern and sometime between His ministry on Earth and the Ecumenical Councils many centuries later, the organization and authority of His church had been lost. Secular leaders and organizations had effectively hijacked the church. There was therefore a need for a restoration rather than a reformation. I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that restoration. The foundations of LDS doctrine and discipline are rooted in more similar to that of the original church, with additional revealed doctrines and practices by the current apostles and prophets.
If you would like me to specifically respond to others, please let me know and I could do so either here or via email.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry I misunderstood you. Can you clarify your two points from the last comment so that I can better understand what you're saying?
Specifically, what are your many reasons for faith in the Book of Mormon? And why do you consider history and archeological evidence to be "a foundation of sand"?
David, I'm guessing from your last reply that you haven't read the first of my three letters (or at least not the many comments there)? Kevin and I have had a conversation about the alleged apostacy there, which led to me posting this third letter. If you want to follow the back story it is here.
ReplyDeleteLike Seth, I think that the archeological or historical evidences should not be the primary reason for taking a particular religious course. When Jesus asked Simon Peter and Andrew to follow him, they didn’t say “let us research the scientific and historical basis of what you’re asking.” Instead they straightway left their nets and followed Him. That scene seems to be the rule rather than the exception in the Bible.
ReplyDeleteHowever, To address your third question (or questions):
I see many corroborating evidences of a falling away and loss of priesthood authority. One of them is that Jesus Christ called twelve men to be apostles. The calling of apostle and the number twelve were evidently important in that when one of the apostles died, the remaining eleven selected another and ordained him to the calling. The organization of a church with twelve apostles, who can trace their ordination to that of Jesus Christ was lost and replaced with Popes, Cardinals and other non-biblical callings.
Although the climate and geology of Central and South America make preservation of historical sites and artifacts much more unlikely than does the arid climate of the Middle East, there have been a number of past and recent discoveries that lead many to the conclusion that they support the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Mormons who are interested in this area can find many sources of both theory and fact. As to DNA evidence, there are a number of scientific reasons why DNA evidence can neither prove or disprove the Book of Mormon narrative.
Reformed Egyptian was the language used on the Book of Mormon plates – not the Book of Abraham. The use of Egyptian characters in ancient Hebrew writings has been researched and documented. It was a common practice. The papyri that Joseph Smith used as a basis for the Book of Abraham has been lost or destroyed and can’t be compared or verified by other translators.
There are many Mormons that approach their religious beliefs from a more scholarly direction. After my initial conversion I have continually taken a “searching for truth” similar to that you describe for yourself. I have read most of the anti-Mormon books and websites and researched their charges. The vast majority of the “problems” are easily dismissed. Some require a bit more research and thought and a few have not yet been answered to my satisfaction. My belief is that in time these likely will be resolved, and in any case I have much more spiritual and scholarly evidence than I need in order to stay on my current spiritual and religious course.
Like Seth, I think that the archeological or historical evidences should not be the primary reason for taking a particular religious course. When Jesus asked Simon Peter and Andrew to follow him, they didn’t say “let us research the scientific and historical basis of what you’re asking.” Instead they straightway left their nets and followed Him. That scene seems to be the rule rather than the exception in the Bible.
ReplyDeleteHowever, To address your third question (or questions):
I see many corroborating evidences of a falling away and loss of priesthood authority. One of them is that Jesus Christ called twelve men to be apostles. The calling of apostle and the number twelve were evidently important in that when one of the apostles died, the remaining eleven selected another and ordained him to the calling. The organization of a church with twelve apostles, who can trace their ordination to that of Jesus Christ was lost and replaced with Popes, Cardinals and other non-biblical callings.
Although the climate and geology of Central and South America make preservation of historical sites and artifacts much more unlikely than does the arid climate of the Middle East, there have been a number of past and recent discoveries that lead many to the conclusion that they support the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Mormons who are interested in this area can find many sources of both theory and fact. As to DNA evidence, there are a number of scientific reasons why DNA evidence can neither prove or disprove the Book of Mormon narrative.
Reformed Egyptian was the language used on the Book of Mormon plates – not the Book of Abraham. The use of Egyptian characters in ancient Hebrew writings has been researched and documented. It was a common practice. The papyri that Joseph Smith used as a basis for the Book of Abraham has been lost and can’t be compared or verified by other translators.
David,
ReplyDeleteAs I stated previously, I agree that choosing to leave everything and follow Jesus is ultimately a matter of faith based in a personal relationship. We do not disagree on that point.
Since subjective experience is far from infallible and since God warns us repeatedly in the Bible against false prophets, I have asked what supporting evidence can be given in support of the LDS faith.
Thus, I would be quite interested in seeing the specific sources you allude to when you say "there have been a number of past and recent discoveries that lead many to the conclusion that they support the historicity of the Book of Mormon."
I would also be interested in hearing more regarding the "number of scientific reasons why DNA evidence can neither prove or disprove the Book of Mormon narrative."
Since the Book of Mormon does not specify a location for where its American populations were, any archeological evidence uncovered in places like the Yucatan Peninsula and elsewhere can only be educated guesses at best.
ReplyDeleteBut let's not forget that the first book of the Book of Mormon 1 Nephi takes place almost entirely in the Old World, and has Jerusalem as its identified starting place. This makes sleuthing the setting of 1 Nephi much easier.
And Nephi's account of traveling the Arabian Peninsula has been found to match up with the actually existing geography. One particular discovery of the burial place of Ishmael (mentioned in Nephi's account) has been particularly exciting for Mormon scholars. You can read a brief article about it here:
http://www.mormontimes.com/article/16462/Michael-R-Ash-Discovering-Nahom
I mentioned the apologetic site fairlds.org in my initial comment. Here are two articles linked from the site. They address the two issues you mention.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_and_DNA_evidence:Summary
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology/Compared_to_the_Bible
Seth & David,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for providing those specific articles. I have read all three plus some additional ones linked from there. I’m sorry I haven’t been able to reply until now; my family and I were moving this past week into a new home.
Let me try to summarize the articles for clarity’s sake:
I. The Mormon Times article by Michael Ash discusses what appears to be the single noteworthy archeological find from the Old World (also referenced in the Fair Mormon article on archeology summarized below); it is proposed to provide support for the Book of Mormon narrative of Lehi’s journey through Arabia.
Archeological evidence points to the existence of a tribe whose name, inscribed “NHM,” may be the source of the transliterated name Nahom in the Book of Mormon. The tribe, which existed at the same time Lehi is believed to have taken his journey through that area, had a large burial ground on their land as well as a major road that turned to the east. According to the Book of Mormon, Lehi buried Ismael “in the place which was called Nahom” and traveled “eastward from that time forth.” Ash describes this “impressive” parallel as a “complexity of interconnectivity.”
II. The Fair Mormon article on DNA argues that, while (1) DNA evidence is purported to sustain the widely-accepted archeological theory that the Americas were first populated by folks of East Asian decent who came by way of the Bering Strait “thousands of years before the advent of Lehi,” and (2) there is no DNA evidence of folks of Middle Eastern decent (e.g., Lehi, etc) having mixed in the DNA pool of American natives, nonetheless, concluding that the Book of Mormon is therefore unhistorical on these grounds would be “flimsy, dubious science.”
According to the Fair Mormon authors, DNA science is not as clear-cut as popular opinion may have it. (e.g., Who can tell what “Middle Eastern” or “Jewish” DNA is or was?) Furthermore, no LDS teachings, they say, contradict the theory that Asian immigrants were here before Lehi appeared on the American scene. They even suggest that perhaps Lehi was Asian.
III. The Fair Mormon article on archeology cites one set of archeological evidence in the Americas to support the Book of Mormon, namely, the existence of 45 out of 60 items (such as swords, types of food, etc.) mentioned in the Book of Mormon. That there is not more archeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon narratives, however, is not a problem, suggest the authors, because criteria of quantity of evidence cannot be established and because “absence of evidence” does not equal “evidence of absence.”
They suggest, largely through rhetorical questions, that given the “very fragmentary” nature of archeological records, it is quite possible that a Christian civilization existing 1,500 years ago on this continent could leave no discernable archeological evidence. The authors suggest, in addition, that the archeological evidence for the Bible is not that impressive after all and that archeology cannot “prove” the claims of either the Bible or the Book of Mormon.
Altogether, the force of the three articles seem to suggest that while there is presently little evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon this should not alarm us.
Does it seem to you that I have correctly apprehended the main gist of the three articles?
You did pretty well summarizing the issues for someone new to the subject matter.
ReplyDeleteI would add on the DNA thing: we don't even need to posit that Lehi was Asiatic.
One method of DNA tracing traces the signature in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). This is only passed along the female side. So really, Lehi's DNA would be irrelevant - it would be his wife Sariah who would matter. And we have next to no information about her.
Another key point to remember is that the DNA critiques of the Book of Mormon are only compelling if you posit Lehi's group providing all, or the majority of the DNA on the North and South American continents.
Now, it is true, there have been persons within the LDS tradition who seemed to hold this population model at various times, but the continental geography of the Book of Mormon has been out of favor for a long time. Book of Mormon scholars today almost all posit that the Book of Mormon events only covered an area the size of modern day Pennsylvania at most. This has been the prevailing Mormon scholarly view for over half a century now (so it was not just recently manufactured to respond to DNA arguments).
LDS scholars also mostly posit that the continent was already inhabited when Lehi's group arrived. Thus any DNA signature Lehi's party brought with them, could be expected to have been swallowed up in the larger indigenous population.
Under this model, the DNA critiques of the Book of Mormon simply don't really work.
Thanks, Seth.
ReplyDeleteIf FairMormon suggests, and you agree, that there is presently little evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, I guess I’m back to my main question: What corroborating evidence or reasons are there, besides personal experience, for thinking that the Mormon faith is true?
Is the answer simply that the LDS are not concerned with corroborating evidence or reasons for faith? That personal experience in prayer is the sole and sufficient basis of belief?
I do also have some questions regarding the content of the articles I summarized above, but I’ll leave that for another day as I’ve been sick most of the week and am still not feeling well.
Sorry, hope you feel better.
ReplyDeleteHow about an example...
Think of trying to introduce a group of high school kids to a great work of classical music. Now, this work has been acknowledged by many to be a "classic." But when you play it for the kids, most seem bored, some are outright hostile to it, and some few are moved by it.
Scripture and religion is like that too. There is power in the words. But many are not in a proper frame of mind to take it in. Many of them might be too jaded on the emotional assault provided by heavy bass-beat rap songs to appreciate the subtleties of Mozart. Many of them might just not be interested, worrying instead about what their peers think of the new skirt they are wearing. Others are just pre-disposed to think that anything coming from a high school teacher is by-definition boring.
But does any of this change whether the symphony was truly a great human musical achievement or not?
People are bored to tears with the Bible all the time, or just consider it strange or creepy. But it has endured over 2000 years as the source inspiration for so much that is good and powerful in the arts, literature, music, architecture, human politics, and human passions. We keep going back to the Bible for inspiration as human beings - whether we know it or not.
Because it is truly an important, compelling, and powerful work.
I think this is probably the greatest evidence out there of its veracity.
I would judge the Book of Mormon by similar lights. Not for how long it has endured. 200 years as opposed to 2000 (more if you count the Old Testament) doesn't look so great (although it's nothing to sniff at either). But by the power of its themes and content.
I would stack the Book of Mormon up there with the Bible on those grounds. It has been a powerful paradigm for viewing the world and its history for me.
Jen, I enjoyed reading this post and all the comments.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that you would cite the apostle Paul of all people as the basis for your claims that people can only be converted to truth by logic and reason. Considering the conversion of Paul it is quite the contrast from what you portray as the evidence of truth. Paul was well educated in verse and scripture yet still he sought only to destroy the church of Christ and was recognized by many as one of the most outspoken and critical against Christians. That was of course until the day the heavens intervened to give him further light and knowledge than what he was able to come to understand through his mere logic and reasoning. He was counseled to stop persecuting his doctrines but rather to go into the city to be told what to do. (see acts 9). Straight away Paul rose up and did as he was instructed, he did not stand around asking Christ to give him more logic and reasoning as to why he should follow his simple instructions. So I ask which came first, his reason and logic or a personal manifestion from the heavens? What I also find interesting in the verses you quote and I encourage you to take particular notice here, is the audience to whom Paul was addressing his teachings in the writings you cited. These were not unbelievers he was writing to but people who had already accepted the words of Christ, by some means of faith and belief, and Paul was striving to give them greater light and understanding through expounding the scriptures to build upon the foundation they had already established, with the proper foundation in place, he was able to expound the doctrines more fully to help solidify their faith and understanding of the doctrines of church.
ReplyDeletePractices of mere limited and imperfect mortal logic and reasoning may help to increase faith and wisdom but they can never serve as a basis or foundation alone, lest one have built their house on a sandy foundation, which will not uphold the storms of attack against reason and logic. If God is perfect and loving of all his children, why would he give to some a superb intellect and ability to reason and understand his words, while yet others have only meager opportunity and ability to reason and obtain knowledge. There is simply not enough time to examine every possibility and come to perfect judgement with regards to truth. If I grow old and lose my ability to reason and understand logic, for example I develop alzheimers and forget facts and principles that served as my foundation, what will happen to me, in such limited capacity I may later be convinced that God does not exist and I won't be able to remember why I believed in him in the first place. Why would God put us on this planet and not give us a means to know if his existence is real, and if his decrees in our behalf are true, something which is personal to all of us, and which will endure through all storms of attack. Why would a just God only let us come to believe on him through limited imperfect logic and reason as opposed to directly revealing unto us his perfect understanding, in a way we can all recognize.
You and I have had different experiences and understand things differently, so in our logic and reasoning we will inevitably come to different conclusions, and if we do come to similar conclusions they most likely have differing reasons and logic behind them. At what point can we be sure that we have made an adequate inquiry to come to a sound conclusion on a matter? Is it a lifetime pursuit, or can it come to us in an instant, through a means superior to our common practices.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, I am not saying logic and reasoning are unimportant, nor useless, I am simply stressing that belief in God comes first through revelation, it is revealed to us from the Father, then we are ready to build the rest of our house which consists primarily of logic and reason, but which is corrected and guided through continual inspiration and revelation from the Holy Ghost.
ReplyDeleteMembers of The Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter Day Saints do not dismiss reason in our pursuits of understanding and truth, else why would the church be so adamant in encouraging us to pursue academic enlightenment establishing several church operated universities and colleges which devote enormous effort and expense to religious and scriptural studies. We combine educational pursuits with religious studies on a regular basis, common examples include four years of high school level seminary courses, multiple college level institute courses dedicated to studies of reason and understanding of history and scriptural writings, and each week at church we participate in several hours of Sunday school lessons, scripture studies, and sacrament service talks. To say we are poor naive children who have never looked further than the front of our noses for truth and enlightenment is absurd. Nevertheless, our pursuits primarily rely on the spirit to give us enlightenment and understanding beyond what we could otherwise understand by logic and reasoning alone, so as to avoid coming to false conclusions based on limited understanding and knowledge, something we commonly refer to as a sandy foundation mentioned in previous posts. I ask, if this is not the purpose of the Holy Ghost, then what is? As recorded in John 14:26. “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” If it is to be the Holy Ghost who teaches us all things, why would we rely on our limited understanding or that of others to ground our faith?
Another example of learning truths by the spirit found in the the Book of Mormon include writings by a prophet Alma, who when teaching a group of people in Alma 5:45-46 stated
"And this is not all. Do ye not suppose that I know of these things myself? Behold, I testify unto you that I do know that these things whereof I have spoken are true. And how do ye suppose that I know of their surety? Behold, I say unto you they are made known unto me by the Holy Spirit of God. Behold, I have fasted and prayed many days that I might know these things of myself. And now I do know of myself that they are true; for the Lord God hath made them manifest unto me by his Holy Spirit; and this is the spirit of revelation which is in me."
You already believe in the bible and hold it to be true, something which brings me great joy. In that light I will simply say that the Book of Mormon does not deny the teachings of the Bible, it acts as a secondary witness to confirm its truths, and serves to dispel erroneous beliefs that have arisen over the centuries from uninspired misinterpretations of biblical writings. It is a completely independent source of historical text which corroborates the doctrines and teachings of Jesus Christ and other prophetic teachings found in the bible. It also gives account of the personal ministry of Christ among another righteous people to whom he taught the same doctrines and established his church among them, with 12 apostles to whom he gave priesthood authority and taught them faith, repentance, baptism, and the receiving of the Holy Ghost to guide them in paths of righteousness.
If you want to know if the book of Mormon is true, you have to test it yourself by seeking revelation from God.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePolar Wrestler,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your interest in my blog. I appreciate your zeal.
I am afraid, however, that you are attacking a straw man.
I have not claimed, nor do I believe, that “people can only be converted to truth by logic and reason” or that logic and reasoning “can serve as a basis or foundation alone.” I also acknowledge in my post the very things you point out to me as overlooking such as the nature of Paul’s conversion and his audience in 1 Corinthians.
I would be happy to continue the discussion if you would like to offer a direct and succinct answer to my main question: What corroborating evidence or reasons are there, besides personal experience, for thinking that the Mormon faith is true?
Seth,
ReplyDeleteSuggesting that the Book of Mormon is “an important, compelling, and powerful work,” and that “the greatest evidence” for its “veracity,” as for the Bible, is “the power of its themes and content,” is probably the best argument I have heard yet for reading it.
I tend to agree that beautiful works of art and literature are objectively beautiful despite the ability of the individual to appreciate or enjoy it. And I think the same about goodness and truth: if something is good or true or beautiful, it is so objectively regardless of the acknowledgement thereof by individuals or groups of people. As you point out, the Bible is an excellent example of this principle.
Here’s the rub with the BofM, as I see it: Even if we grant that it contains powerful themes and content, that doesn’t seem to show that it is true in the requisite way.
For example, I find Greek myths to be very beautiful, compelling, and powerful. I also, and not unrelatedly, find them to contain a great deal of truth. They are true in so far as they convey truths about human nature¬–its highs and lows, hopes and doubts, glories and temptations, aspirations and tragedies. Myths and other great fiction narratives often get at what is most deeply true about human beings. At the same time, I do not take them to be true in the sense of being reliable histories of actual individuals.
Similarly, there seem to be plausible ways to explain the source of the BofM’s power in ways that do not require it to be historically true. For example, any story, fiction or nonfiction, that took the biblical God, and especially the biblical Jesus, as a main character would be very powerful on that count alone, even if the story and its power were entirely derivative, riding on Christian tradition and on the Bible, which, as you observe, has been a powerful force in human culture for thousands of years. As a story derived from biblical tradition, it would no doubt contain some truths about the nature of God and man, even if not a true account on the whole.
So, how would I know whether the BofM is a true historical account or merely a good story derived from a powerful tradition?
(continued)
ReplyDeleteAnd on the question of the BofM as a historical account, I would like to raise some more questions regarding the FairMormon articles discussed previously in this thread.
I have three questions regarding (1) FairMormon sources, (2) New World epigraphic evidence, and (3) manuscript evidence.
(1) I am no expert in DNA studies and have no hope of becoming anything close to one. So, I have to take someone else’s word for it. The main thing that makes me skeptical of taking the FairMormon article’s word as a trusted authority is their sources.
I notice that virtually every citation given in support of the FairMormon position is to a Mormon author writing for a Mormon publication. The only exception as far as I can tell, is the quotation from the article in The Guardian by Dr. Martin Richards. And on that count, Dr. Richards’ article does not appear to be addressing the same question that the FairMormon article is addressing. My reading of it suggests that Dr. Richards is directing his criticism at the commercialization of DNA studies for individuals and the hype surrounding such personal studies in videos by BBC2; he does not appear to be criticizing the non-commercial science studying the history of human migration as the FairMormon article seems to imply. In fact, Dr. Richards ends his article by drawing a contrast between the two applications of genetics studies saying, “By tracking the history of genes back through time, geneticists can try to reconstruct the migrations and expansions of the human species. They have no special insight into ethnicity and identity.”
None of what I am saying shows that the FairMormon article’s conclusions are wrong, but it does make me wonder about their credibility. If the FairMormon authors are correct, why don’t they cite any non-LDS sources to support their claims? If the science behind the publicized criticisms of the BofM is as spurious as FairMormon suggests, wouldn’t we expect non-LDS scientists to also blow the whistle?
I have the same concern regarding the FairMormon article on archeology. All but two of the 17 citations are LDS publications (and mostly by one author, Hamblin). The two non-LDS sources are quoted/referenced for very specific facts such as the percent of biblical locations that have been identified where no toponym has been preserved.
If the FairMormon authors are correct, why don’t they cite any archeologists or non-LDS authorities to support any of their central claims and implications? Wouldn’t you say that in a parallel situation, we would think it a bit odd if those who had a vested interest in perpetuating a view failed to cite any impartial or opposing authorities to substantiate their position in an article ostensibly set out to address the question for inquirers?
(continued again)
ReplyDelete(2) I also wonder how noting the dearth of epigraphic New World evidence from BofM times supports the implied conclusion that it is quite possible that a Christian civilization existing 1,500 years ago on this continent could leave no discernible historical evidence. In fact, I wonder whether the very dearth of epigraphic evidence is not itself problematic for BofM claims?
Why—if “reformed Egyptian” was a predominant language of the day in Book of Mormon times in the Americas—is there no evidence that such a language or its hieroglyphics existed or was ever used? As the FairMormon article notes, there is plenty of evidences that other languages were in use. Doesn’t it seems rather unlikely that there would be no evidence of a major written language such as “reformed Egyptian” if it had, in fact, been in use?
(3) I was similarly struck by the absence in the FairMormon article of a discussion of manuscript evidence. As I understand it, the various books of the Bible are attested to by a strong manuscript trail throughout history that allows scholars to establish a text’s historical reliability, approximate the date of origin, and confirm authorship (more or less). Additionally, there are countless extra-biblical manuscripts that also provide corroborating evidence for the date, authorship, language, and content of biblical texts.
Manuscript evidence seems to be a significant testimony to the historicity of the Bible. Why does the FairMormon article fail to discuss the existence or non-existence of New World manuscripts from BofM times? I’m not talking about manuscripts of the BofM particularly but just any manuscripts about anything from the same time period. This seems to be a major category of historical evidence about which the article is curiously silent. Perhaps it is addressed elsewhere?
Thank you for the respectful dialog on these questions. I am glad for the opportunity to learn more about your faith and my own while I’m at it.
Jen, I'll get to the other stuff later.
ReplyDeleteBut on the subject of bias in Mormon scholarship:
It needs to be kept firmly in mind that Mormon studies are not an area of general interest to academia. This doesn't mean that they are not rich, worthwhile and compelling as a subject of study. But it does mean they are undiscovered.
Most of the scholarly world does not frankly care about Mormon issues one way or the other. It's an untapped area of inquiry.
Thus, the only people who are going to care about Mormon issues are Mormons themselves, and their devoted enemies. As you noted, the Mormons are going to be biased somewhat.
I would add that the critics of our religion are just as biased. You can't go somewhere like Mormonism Research Ministries and tell me those guys don't have an agenda - mainly preventing their parishoners from letting the LDS missionaries in the doorway. Every time they look at Mormonism, they look at it with an aim of finding a weakness, some negative that they can exploit.
And Mormon scholars likewise, are going to be operating from an apologetic framework.
The question becomes then - do apologetics count as legitimate scholarship?
Would you count Christian apologists as legitimate scholars?
I think they would deserve that title.
And so do our apologists. Many of them are top names in their fields and often publish in other academic journals on areas unrelated to Mormon issues.
One of FAIR's contributors on DNA arguments is Ugo Perego - a top quality geneticist in his own right. He has contributed to defense of the Book of Mormon, but that does not disqualify him as a legitimate scholar. Certainly his work is worth taking seriously.
Either way, and argument is an argument, and should stand on its own merits. Attacking the source doesn't seem all that useful to me.
Especially in light of the fact that with Mormon issues - you are stuck with partisan scholarship. No one else cares.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs for the bit about Reformed Egyptian, even the text of the Book of Mormon itself never says that this was the actual language of the wider population. It appears to have been solely a language used by the priestly class for use in recorded certain select holy records, and not a language of popular use.
ReplyDeleteSo even under the Book of Mormon's own narrative, we would not expect to find many instances of its use in ancient Native American locales.
"Reformed Egyptian" was nothing more than a highly abbreviated sort of shorthand writing utilizing a form of Egyptian - adapted for the needs of writing on metal plates. We should not read more into this language system than that.
Also keep in mind that the Spanish Conquistadors, when they conquered central America, seized just about every scrap of gold they could get their hands on, and melted it down into gold ingots for transport back to Spain. There is no way anything like the "Gold Plates" described by Joseph Smith would have survived that cultural plundering - even if records like that were in existence at the time.
On that same note - people don't take into account that Central America (currently the most popular candidate for the location of the Book of Mormon), has an utterly different cultural history than that of the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteAll Aztec and Maya culture was wiped out in the genocidal exploits of the Conquistadors. There was literally nothing left when they were done. Books, scrolls, records were destroyed as pagan filth, gold and other precious metal was plundered, religious icons and stonework defaced or ruined.
This was not an environment where we can expect anything similar to the sort of document preservation we see in the textual history of the Bible.
You are simply asking for something that is impossible - even if the Book of Mormon is a bona fide authentic historical document.
Last point of order here - the CRITIQUES of Mormonism are usually far more lacking in scholarly and academic credibility than the stuff being put out by FARMS.
ReplyDeleteI often see ex-Mormons asking for independent scholarly verifications of arguments defending Mormonism by LDS scholars.
Funny thing is, I never see these same people providing similarly rigorous academic backing for the arguments that led them OUT of Mormonism.
Like I said, this is a purely partisan battlefield, and there are no neutral participants.
Wow,
ReplyDeleteThis blog post has turned into quite the Saga. I don't know that I can add much to the conversation but I will try to address one or two points of commentary. Two themes which I tend to stand out to me are the following:
1. There seems to be at present a limited amount of physical proof/evidence to support some idea's put forth in the Book of Mormon texts.
2. There seems to be a discussion on coming to understand religion based on reason, faith, and revelation, and to what extent should we rely on one vs the other.
For the first point, I agree that some items of physical evidence supporting Book of Mormon claims are lacking and I would conclude that no definitive decision could be drawn to either confirm or deny the validity of the Book of Mormon based on these facts alone. I will however note that some recent evidence further supporting Book of Mormon claims that didn't exist at the time of its original publication include writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I found some interesting articles on the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship website, which contains many FARMS publications, that touches some of these issues.
A brief article which describes a few points relating to Dead Sea Scrolls and the Book of Mormon can found here:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=54
On another line of thought, I agree that there is much evidence supporting the history and authenticity of the Bible which has been preserved throughout the last two Millenia, rather remarkable in my opinion, this is wonderful. However you and I must both agree that just because you can prove something is old, there is still the question of whether or not it was true to begin with. Your example of Greek Mythology might make a good example in this case. There is much documentation and history demonstrating that it was a widely held belief by many, evidence supports general understanding of the original timeline and authorship of several texts pertaining to the issue, and yet still you do not view it as a true religion which comes from God. Thus, regardless of the proof surrounding the bible, it must still stand on its own merits by what it teaches and ultimately all that really matters is whether or not God recognizes them as his own words> How are we to know such things?
This leads into the second item I would like to address. But which I will post as a second comment below.
On point number 2, you previously asked the question, "What I don’t understand, however, is why you see faith and reason as being opposed to each other rather than complementary"
ReplyDeleteI don't know that this answer has been answered to your satisfaction in review of the previous responses, although I think Seth's responses to your questions would demonstrate that this isn't the case at all since many of his responses involve very scholarly approaches to understanding and explaining several of the questions you have raised.
Earlier this year Dallin H. Oaks, an apostle of the church and member of the quorum of the 12 gave an address at Harvard Law School titled "Fundamental Premises of Our Faith" In it he discusses three main premises, two of them pertain to some of our beliefs and points of doctrine, the third he titles "The three-fold sources of truth about man and the universe: science, the scriptures, and continuing revelation, and how we can know them. Within this article he proposes the following
"Thus, while Latter-day Saints rely on scriptural scholars and scholarship, that reliance is preliminary in method and secondary in authority. As a source of sacred teaching, the scriptures are not the ultimate but the penultimate. The ultimate knowledge comes by personal revelation through the Holy Ghost."
Perhaps this is where most of the disconnect arrises between Mormons trying to explain why they believe what they do, and you trying to understand how they came to believe that way. A fundamental study of doctrines, history, teachings, and science must be made in order to understand the complexity and basis of knowledge and understanding, and we do our best to make sense of it. Once this has been done, we ask God if what we have found and the way we understand it is true or correct, and we honestly believe that we can receive an answer and God will teach us through personal revelation. We then continue and repeat this process throughout our lives. Which of the answers do we consider most authoritative, as Dallin H. Oaks explains, reason is preliminary in method, but secondary in authority, ultimately we seek to know Gods will and receive our testimony from him.
Dallin H. Oaks also gives reason for this concept earlier on in his lecture where he discusses writings of Paul, in 1 Corinthians 2:1-4.
I hope this helps you to better understand some of the questions you are asking and perhaps gives you more understanding of why you sometimes receive the perplexing responses you encounter.
I forgot to include the link for the Dallin H. Oaks article I mentioned in my previous post, here it is for your reference.
ReplyDeletehttp://lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/fundamental-premises-of-our-faith-talk-given-by-elder-dallin-h-oaks-at-harvard-law-school