Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

[Keewon]

But if you remove the book of Abraham stone, the arch falls. If you remove the Book of Mormon stone, the arch falls. If you remove the Jesus stone, the arch falls.

I was willing to cut the church a huge amount of slack as a TBM. I could imagine God letting prophets flub up, perhaps even a lot, as part of their education and to test the people's charity towards them. But what I couldn't imagine was the prophets messing up on everything.

Specifically, I hypothesized that as long as JS went out on a limb and prophesied about all sorts of scientific matters -- matters about which confirming or disconfirming evidence could be expected -- then if he were a prophet he should be getting something right that he probably couldn't otherwise have gotten right. If he did no better than an otherwise intelligent person of his era might be expected to do, with some howlers thrown in because of the audacity of his claims, then it would be correct to say that science per se disproves his claim of being a prophet.

It was hearing about the DNA experiments for the first time that led me to realize JS had failed every scientific test; that I already knew how those experiments would turn out, and the next scientific results, and the next. In addition, just in case I suspected there were rocks under which I hadn't looked that might harbor some supporting evidence, the LDS apologists disabused me of that notion. The fact that they can only succeed by spinning and obfuscating is another (IMO strong) sort of evidence.

So my shelf collapsed when I became convinced that wherever I looked I would find evidence of fraud and uninspired imaginative spin. That became my going hypothesis. It has worked pretty well so far.

[Keewon]

But if you remove the book of Abraham stone, the arch falls. If you remove the Book of Mormon stone, the arch falls. If you remove the Jesus stone, the arch falls.

Sorry.. I never got around to the punchline of my comment. Everyone whose shelf collapses has something in particular that triggers the event - some stone in the arch that falls - but for me it was the moment I realized that all the stones are fake. If there were even one thing JS got right that he could only have gotten right by being a prophet, the story might be different for me.

[alas]

But if you remove the book of Abraham stone, the arch falls. If you remove the Book of Mormon stone, the arch falls. If you remove the Jesus stone, the arch falls.

Sorry.. I never got around to the punchline of my comment. Everyone whose shelf collapses has something in particular that triggers the event - some stone in the arch that falls - but for me it was the moment I realized that all the stones are fake. If there were even one thing JS got right that he could only have gotten right by being a prophet, the story might be different for me.

Sounds like you are kind of like me in that the stones falling one by one didn’t do it. I needed to trip over the pile of fallen rubble. Like I said, I decided the prophet was dead wrong in 1970 over blacks and priesthood, well and LGBT issues because back then they were saying that the feelings were sin. Um, sorry, feelings are not sin. What you do with feelings may or may not be. I had a really close friend who was gay in high school and we talked about such things. But I stuck with the church, through all kinds of things. I was pretty sure BOM was fiction and JS a fraud but I stayed semi believing and active until I decided about 10 years ago that the church was harmful to me and others. By then I had watched my heroes get ex-ed during the Sept 6, and I clung to some stupid notion of ???? Sort of like the construction sand was still under the arch to keep it from falling. It wasn’t until I stepped back and saw the bigger picture of EVERYTHING is false, so how can the church be good, that I went inactive and decided I was done with the church. I had nuanced my TR interviews up to that point because there was something I still believed about the church being true. 40 freaking years I stayed with the rubble of that fallen arch.

So, I kind of understand about people like Givens who see most of what is wrong and still want something in it to be what it claims it is.

[Hagoth]

This reminds me of John Larsen's analogy about the wall and the flashlight. We can replace the wall with the arch.

You're standing in a dark room examining a brick wall with a flashlight. You point the light at a single brick and see that it is cracked and crumbling. "It's ok," you say, "the wall overall is strong." You point the flashlight at another brick and see that it too is damaged and weak. "It's ok because overall the wall is strong." You keep seeing damaged bricks but you never lose your confidence in the wall because you are certain that as a whole it is strong. Then you eventually bump into the light switch and see the entire wall for the first time.

[alas]

This reminds me of John Larsen's analogy about the wall and the flashlight. We can replace the wall with the arch.

You're standing in a dark room examining a brick wall with a flashlight. You point the light at a single brick and see that it is cracked and crumbling. "It's ok," you say, "the wall overall is strong." You point the flashlight at another brick and see that it too is damaged and weak. "It's ok because overall the wall is strong." You keep seeing damaged bricks but you never lose your confidence in the wall because you are certain that as a whole it is strong. Then you eventually bump into the light switch and see the entire wall for the first time.

He he, well, I think I waited until the wall fell on me.

[Keewon]

You're standing in a dark room examining a brick wall with a flashlight. You point the light at a single brick and see that it is cracked and crumbling. "It's ok," you say, "the wall overall is strong." ... You keep seeing damaged bricks but you never lose your confidence in the wall because you are certain that as a whole it is strong.

Inferential statistics provides a useful tool here. You point the light in several random locations (a "random sample"), and if wherever you point the light the bricks are cracked, at some point you can reasonably infer that the whole wall is crumbling without needing to turn the light on or bump into the wall, risking your life thereby. If you really want the wall to be solid search a little longer; but you don't have to see the whole thing. That's a core insight of science.

This is one way the apologists go hugely wrong. They don't even know what a crumbling brick would look like, much less go looking for them. They hold their hand over the light to cover the cracks; squint so you just see the half inch above the floor, etc. "Why risk your eternal salvation by giving up the search for good bricks?" they ask, when in reality you are risking wasting your whole life, the short time you have on earth, on a fairy tale.

One analogy I like is the 5000 piece jigsaw puzzle. Imagine that 90% of the pieces have been assembled and the picture that emerges is a chapel & garden in the autumn in New England. There are a few pieces still left on the floor. If you were to use those pieces, is there any chance the picture could suddenly flip and become, say, a picture of a sailboat on the ocean surrounded by dolphins?

"Well", argue the apologists, "since your eternal salvation is at stake, why not keep trying to see the ocean? And look- one of these pieces even has a bit of blue on it- it has to be ocean. What else could it be?" (see also "NHM")

Sorry, apologists. That ship has sailed. (Sorry NOMers for the bad pun. )

[Hagoth]

I like the puzzle analogy. I remember a time when I started realizing that the puzzle wasn't going together as well as it should have. I knew some of the pieces were supposed to fit but didn't, although I could force them with a hammer. The box cover showed a New England church but my puzzle was looking more and more like a sailboat. You can only hammer so many of the pieces into spaces where they didn't fit.

[Keewon]

I remember a time when I started realizing that the puzzle wasn't going together as well as it should have. I knew some of the pieces were supposed to fit but didn't, although I could force them with a hammer. The box cover showed a New England church but my puzzle was looking more and more like a sailboat. You can only hammer so many of the pieces into spaces where they didn't fit.

I have a TBM friend who is comfortable enough in his faith that he has listened to every argument I could put before him about why the Church puzzle pieces don't fit the picture on the box. He always returns to his version of Pascal's wager- Eternity is a long time, and if the Gospel story is true, the one thing you wouldn't want is to wake up after your death and realize you hadn't worked hard enough at hammering the puzzle pieces into the "right" picture. Shouldn't we take a chance on it? Life is short, lots of benefits come from the Church and you stand to lose so very much more than you stand to gain by skepticism, or so the argument goes.

Seems like an important argument to be able to answer...

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

I remember a time when I started realizing that the puzzle wasn't going together as well as it should have. I knew some of the pieces were supposed to fit but didn't, although I could force them with a hammer. The box cover showed a New England church but my puzzle was looking more and more like a sailboat. You can only hammer so many of the pieces into spaces where they didn't fit.

I have a TBM friend who is comfortable enough in his faith that he has listened to every argument I could put before him about why the Church puzzle pieces don't fit the picture on the box. He always returns to his version of Pascal's wager- Eternity is a long time, and if the Gospel story is true, the one thing you wouldn't want is to wake up after your death and realize you hadn't worked hard enough at hammering the puzzle pieces into the "right" picture. Shouldn't we take a chance on it? Life is short, lots of benefits come from the Church and you stand to lose so very much more than you stand to gain by skepticism, or so the argument goes.

Seems like an important argument to be able to answer...

The counter to that if he is wrong is the church sucks every last minute of life from you in the form of meetings, callings, strict rules that prevent you from enjoying 1 out of 7 days (and likely more than that), using all your vacation time supervising other people's kids, etc. It steals the life you have to live right now. Furthermore, the tribal othering rhetoric can make one isolated from what could be the enjoyment of the beautiful diversity of mankind and the experiences that go with it. For some perhaps it works to their overall benefit, for others not so much.

[Hagoth]

Eternity is a long time, and if the Gospel story is true, the one thing you wouldn't want is to wake up after your death and realize you hadn't worked hard enough at hammering the puzzle pieces into the "right" picture. Shouldn't we take a chance on it?

What if your friend dies and wakes up in an evangelical afterlife, or a Muslim one? He will be doubly screwed for having devoted his life a satanic cult, according to those points of view. Have you suggested that he needs to give equal time to those belief systems? And maybe a few hundred others? If you put all of your money on a single bet you may be increasing your potential payoff, but you're also drastically increasing your likelihood of going broke.

Particularly in Mormonism, total ignorance of the religion is the best option. Where so much is expected you can only screw up and reduce your potential reward.

[Palerider]

My best description of the demise of Mormonism is the "death by a thousand cuts" analogy.

If there had been two or three "shakey" areas, I would have waited for the answer till I got to Heaven. But there are SO MANY issues and problems and they were accompanied by such crappy answers from biased people.....it became ridiculous.

Furthermore, the moment you decided to question their "rabbit out of the hat" answers, your own character becomes the problem, not the church or Joseph Smith.

"Yep, Ah thank yer bein' inspahred by ol' Satan rat now Palerider. You best reepent of what ere' yer doin' wrong!"

And that was the final cut. It wasn't the church that had issues, it was me. But that wasn't what stopped me from believing. I didn't leave the church because I was "offended". But it showed me that after 50 years of faithful service and tithing payments there was zero trust in the relationship, which is the key ingredient in all relationships. I found out the organization I had loved and devoted my life to had been lying to me and when I questioned them on it, they blamed me for the problem. Said I had no right to question their character.

I guess that's why I don't go away quietly. It's one thing to cheat on me but don't pi$$ in my boots and try to tell me it's raining.....

[Emower]

Guys, you are arguing over which one element of the church is the “key stone”. Now, step back. What exactly is a key stone? It is the top stone in an arch, which if removed, the whole arch falls. Only problem is that if you remove the stone next to the key stone, the whole arch falls. See, in an arch, each stone leans on the two stones at each side. Take any stone out, and the arch collapses. The key stone is simply the last one put in, so that the under construction arch no longer needs outside support. With the key stone leaning on the other stones, the arch supports itself. But each one of the seven or so angled stones is absolutely necessary to support the arch. So, what I am saying is that if you prove the BoA false, the arch collapses. If you prove the BoM false, the arch collapses. If you prove individual revelation false, the arch collapses. If you prove the prophet false, the arch collapses. The arch has about seven stones that lean on each other and if you take any of them out, the arch falls.

Touche

[jfro18]

I have a TBM friend who is comfortable enough in his faith that he has listened to every argument I could put before him about why the Church puzzle pieces don't fit the picture on the box. He always returns to his version of Pascal's wager- Eternity is a long time, and if the Gospel story is true, the one thing you wouldn't want is to wake up after your death and realize you hadn't worked hard enough at hammering the puzzle pieces into the "right" picture. Shouldn't we take a chance on it? Life is short, lots of benefits come from the Church and you stand to lose so very much more than you stand to gain by skepticism, or so the argument goes.

Seems like an important argument to be able to answer...

My wife made this argument to me during one of our discussions on church maybe a year ago.

She said effectively 'Even if this church isn't true, I'll find out when I die. And if that's the case, I'd rather have been wrong trying to be a better person than leaving something I've known to be true because of what modern science and scholars tell me.'

So basically the same argument - she says the church doesn't ask too much to where she'll be mad if it's not true (deep down she knows that's not true, but she did say it), but that she doesn't want to give up what she knows to be true based on the "worldly" views.

It's impossible to argue with because it kind of shuts down the argument of what is real and what isn't.

[Keewon]

It wasn't the church that had issues, it was me. But that wasn't what stopped me from believing. I didn't leave the church because I was "offended". But it showed me that after 50 years of faithful service and tithing payments there was zero trust in the relationship, which is the key ingredient in all relationships. I found out the organization I had loved and devoted my life to had been lying to me and when I questioned them on it, they blamed me for the problem. Said I had no right to question their character.

That reminds me of an event many years ago when I was a tour host on Temple Square, long before that program was turned over to the missionaries. I remember being disturbed by a number of historical inaccuracies in a new tour script. Not just inaccuracies, but plain-out manipulative sales tactics. And it wasn't just me; all the other guides hated the script.

Anyways I went to the shift leader (I can't remember his title) and expressed feeling uncomfortable about some elements in the script. His response was to get a troubled look on his face, sit behind his desk, and ask: "Brother Keewon, are you doing your home teaching? Are you paying an honest tithe? Are you living the law of chastity? Are you..."

He went through the list. I was flabbergasted. It didn't matter if we were teaching lies. If I was feeling uncomfortable, the problem was with me. By definition.

(And yes BTW, I was doing all the things on his list. In addition to spending my entire Saturday on Temple Square each week, just for the love of missionary work.)

I wasn't even offended at the personal slight. It mainly opened my eyes just a bit more to the fact that factual truth per se wasn't something the leadership was concerned about.

[moksha]

Then you eventually bump into the light switch and see the entire wall for the first time.

Makes sense then to issue strong warnings against the light switch and offer swift excommunications to anyone giving directions to that light switch. For the sake of our Mushroomhood, keep us damp and in the dark.

[Not Buying It]

I remember a time when I started realizing that the puzzle wasn't going together as well as it should have. I knew some of the pieces were supposed to fit but didn't, although I could force them with a hammer. The box cover showed a New England church but my puzzle was looking more and more like a sailboat. You can only hammer so many of the pieces into spaces where they didn't fit.

I have a TBM friend who is comfortable enough in his faith that he has listened to every argument I could put before him about why the Church puzzle pieces don't fit the picture on the box. He always returns to his version of Pascal's wager- Eternity is a long time, and if the Gospel story is true, the one thing you wouldn't want is to wake up after your death and realize you hadn't worked hard enough at hammering the puzzle pieces into the "right" picture. Shouldn't we take a chance on it? Life is short, lots of benefits come from the Church and you stand to lose so very much more than you stand to gain by skepticism, or so the argument goes.

Seems like an important argument to be able to answer...

The counter to that if he is wrong is the church sucks every last minute of life from you in the form of meetings, callings, strict rules that prevent you from enjoying 1 out of 7 days (and likely more than that), using all your vacation time supervising other people's kids, etc. It steals the life you have to live right now. Furthermore, the tribal othering rhetoric can make one isolated from what could be the enjoyment of the beautiful diversity of mankind and the experiences that go with it. For some perhaps it works to their overall benefit, for others not so much.

This is the correct response, in my view. Pascal’s wager doesn’t work with an organization whose claims are disproven by evidence, because no matter how much you wager on false claims, they will always be false claims. Pascal’s wager can’t be appropriate applied to the Church, because there is no chance its claims are true per all the available evidence, and there is so much baggage I personally wouldn’t feel it’s much of a win living the Mormon life if it doesn’t get you anything in the next one.

[Hagoth]

Pascal's wager has always seemed deeply flawed to me because it is entirely dependent on the premises of a given belief system. John Larsen was the speaker at our Oasis meeting yesterday. Mentioned an Evangelical friend of his who agrees with John that, from his Evangelical point of view, there is essentially no difference between the goodness or badness of the people in heaven and those in hell. The only difference is that those in heaven have accepted Jesus as their personal savior. Within that framework anyone who bargained on Pascal's wager by devoting their life to their understanding of what would please God are utterly screwed for eternity.

It seems to me that the only Pascal-type wager you could make would be dependent on God's willingess to meet you half way. You would have to say "I'm ready to believe in you and do whatever you want me to do, God. Just tell me exactly what that is without requiring me to put more trust in some middleman than I'm putting in your ability to communicate your will to me."

[alas]

Pascal's wager has always seemed deeply flawed to me because it is entirely dependent on the premises of a given belief system. John Larsen was the speaker at our Oasis meeting yesterday. Mentioned an Evangelical friend of his who agrees with John that, from his Evangelical point of view, there is essentially no difference between the goodness or badness of the people in heaven and those in hell. The only difference is that those in heaven have accepted Jesus as their personal savior. Within that framework anyone who bargained on Pascal's wager by devoting their life to their understanding of what would please God are utterly screwed for eternity.

It seems to me that the only Pascal-type wager you could make would be dependent on God's willingess to meet you half way. You would have to say "I'm ready to believe in you and do whatever you want me to do, God. Just tell me exactly what that is without requiring me to put more trust in some middleman than I'm putting in your ability to communicate your will to me."

Or, simply to say, OK God, I trust that you really are God and are just and fair and will judge me on the knowledge I have and how I treat others. You trust me to do my best, and I will trust that your judgement will be fair.

Because God requiring you to follow X religion is not fair unless he makes it clear that X is correct and Y & Z are not. Well, to me He has not made it clear, so how the heck is it fair for Him to judge me according to Born again rules, or Mormon rules, or Muslim rules. It is only fair and just for Him/Her/It to judge me according to knowledge I have. Which really isn’t Pascal’s wager at all. Pascal’s wager assumes that you either know more than humans really know, or it assumes God is a jerk.

[Mormorrisey]

Boy, take a week and a half off and this thread just kept going!

Just for those who are interested, here's a taste of what Givens is going to be arguing in his forthcoming book:

https://faithmatters.org/what-is-the-book-of-abraham/

Interesting piece, but a certain james allred had the following comment on the piece, which I absolutely agree with, and to me, is the main trouble with the BOA. Here's what he said:

"In cases like the Book of Abraham, if we are going down the path like Teryl is showing us, we need to begin with the repentance process.
We are sorry that we have taught in the past such a clear picture that Joseph Smith literally translated the papyri from literal words written by Abraham at a specific time in history and we now feel it is more of a spiritual revelation process.
We are sorry if that has caused any confusion.
Now let us talk about how we can be inspired by what we have and not have to have it be the literal words of Abraham written down by his own hand upon papyri.
Without that first step. Important step. There is little space for trust and inspiration."

Bingo.

[Keewon]

Just for those who are interested, here's a taste of what Givens is going to be arguing in his forthcoming book:

https://faithmatters.org/what-is-the-book-of-abraham/

I just skimmed the front page, and had a sense of deja vu about an article written by Carl Sagan about the writings of Russian grand pseudo-scientist Immanuel Velikovsky. Velikovsky's writings touched on theories in physics, linguistics, archaeology, anthropology and on and on as he tried to explain away the miracles of the Old Testament. Paraphrasing Sagan, anyone well versed in any of those areas, say physics, was likely to say "What V has to say physics is absolute BS, but what he says about the other fields sounds quite interesting." IOW, if you know enough about a field to have a rational opinion you could tell he was just blowing smoke as he went along, but if not he could sound rather engaging.

The same feels true about Givans. He will make grand announcements that touch on evolution, astrophysics, and on and on, but anything I happen to have more than a passing acquaintance with I can tell he's pulling arguments out of the air. Here's a taste:

The space-time foundations in which our senses are grounded are only a slice of reality; many physicists now argue that there may be as many as eleven dimensions to reality—only four of which are accessible to our minds and senses. Newton’s universe, once stable, coherent, and predictable, has become foreign, indecipherable, and saturated in mystery and paradox.

Wow. Take that, Skeptic. If space-time doesn't redeem JS's charade, I don't know what will. /s

As I've said elsewhere, I'm pretty sure that if science in any way supported their claims, science would be the Church's best friend. The fact that the apologists have to spin in this way is another line of evidence that it does not.