Revisiting evolution - BYU vs. math

A while ago I did a somewhat deep dive into the evolution issue. I read a lot, talked to a variety of people, etc. I concluded that the math didn't work for evolution, but I also recognized I wasn't enough of an expert to give an opinion and I didn't have anything original to contribute yet.

So I didn't write about it.

Some time ago, I saw that someone has discussed it in some length.

https://stream.org/renowned-yale-computer-science-prof-leaves-darwinism/

One of my favorite parts of this article is the first sentence of the second paragraph.

He’s not giving up Darwinism without some remorse. “It means one less beautiful idea in our world,” says David Gelernter.

This isn’t someone you’d expect to reject Darwin. He lives and works at the heart of the intellectual establishment. He’s a renowned computer scientist at Yale University — the New York Times called him a “rock star” — and served on the National Council on the Arts. 

The writer, Rachel Alexander, whom I presume is favorable toward Gelernter, frames this as "unexpected" because Gelernter is well educated and works at Yale. She's probably correct, which corroborates the point I made in another blog about the elites in Babylon.

And it also shows why our intellectuals have been promoting evolution.
_____

I find this whole thing funny because just as our BYU intellectuals have managed to construct an "evolution" exhibit on campus in the Bean museum, and just as they've been able to convince most of their students that evolution is "true," we have a real scientist, detached from agendas and not trying to curry favor with his peers, announcing that evolution cannot explain the natural world.

Some of the BYU employees have shown the effectiveness of their persuasion.

Polling data reveal a decades-long residual rejection of evolution in the United States, based on perceived religious conflict. Similarly, a strong creationist movement has been documented internationally, including in the Muslim world. 

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, Mormon), a generally conservative denomination, have historically harbored strong anti-evolution sentiments. We report here a significant shift toward acceptance, compared to attitudes 30 years earlier, by students at Brigham Young University, which is owned and operated by the LDS church. 

This change appears to have multiple explanations. Students currently entering the university have been exposed to a much-improved introduction to evolution during high school. More importantly, there has been a significant decrease in negative messaging from Church authorities and in its religious education system. There is also evidence that current students have been positively influenced toward evolution by their parents, a large percentage of whom were BYU students, who earlier were given a strong science education deemed compatible with the maintenance of religious belief. 

A pre-post comparison demonstrates that a majority of current students become knowledgeable and accepting following a course experience focused on evolutionary principles delivered in a faith-friendly atmosphere. Elements of that classroom pedagogy, intended to promote reconciliation, are presented. 

Our experience may serve as a case-study for prompting changes in acceptance of evolution in other conservative religious groups.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205798

Great. Just as uninhibited scientists figure out evolution cannot work, our BYU faculty is teaching the youth of the Church to believe evolution.

Here's a nice article on the evolution of evolution at BYU.

https://universe.byu.edu/2019/07/30/the-church-and-byu-an-evolution-of-evolution/

This one reflects some fun biases from the author as well. Here's a great line:

This message from the First Presidency was anti-evolution and science. 

Of course, nothing in the message was "anti-science." The message opposed the "theories of men."

Not to be left out, FairMormon chooses the ad hominem approach by attacking people instead of explaining the issues.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Why_is_evolution_allowed_to_be_taught_at_BYU%3F

And, of course, Dan the Interpreter chimes in:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2019/09/evolution-on-display-at-byu-and-other-science-news.html#comment-4614203417

The end

Fluhman - Mason discussions

NOTE: a lot of subscribers here don't realize I've moved my main blog to
http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/.

This BookofMormonWars blog is transitioning toward a broader discussion of the Book of Mormon, particularly among Christians.

In the meantime, I'll make occasional comments on LDS-related issues.
_____

The discussion at the link below reminds me of what happens in non-LDS homes when a family members joins the LDS church. I've heard this type of concern many times in many places.

https://faithmatters.org/what-about-people-who-leave-the-church-a-conversation-with-spencer-fluhman-and-patrick-mason/

This conversation sounds like these fine brethren have never heard of this problem before, as if people leaving is a brand new idea to them. Of course, that's not the case. Both of them are well aware of the faith-crisis problems.

I agree with what Brother Mason said in this interview:

In general, I would like us to figure out what we really believe and then be unapologetic about it, even in our first encounter with interlocutors (if and when the question comes up).

If we don’t believe something, then we shouldn’t teach it and ideally should disavow it if it has been taught before.  If we’re unsure about something, then we should say so and then allow for a diversity of viewpoints.

I prefer a straightforward approach rather than tap dancing around unpopular or difficult issues, and believe that we gain more respect by being honest and confident than shifty and defensive.

https://www.fromthedesk.org/10-questions-patrick-mason/

"Shifty and defensive" is a great description of the M2C proponents. They resort to censorship to maintain the illusion of M2C. If instead the M2C citation cartel adopted the approach suggested by Mason here--i.e., allow for a diversity of viewpoints--I would have stopped blogging about M2C a long time ago.

Instead, Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter, FairMormon, and the rest continue to promote M2C exclusively and disparage anyone who disagrees with them.

The M2C citation cartel is one of the underlying reasons for the problems Fluhman and Mason discuss in this conversation.

It's way past time to acknowledge, respect, and accommodate multiple views about Book of Mormon geography and historicity. Perhaps our scholars at BYU, CES, and COB will someday actually honor the Church's policy of neutrality.

Review of A Case for the Book of Mormon

People are asking me what I think of Tad R. Callister's book A Case for the Book of Mormon.

Overall, it's probably effective for bias confirmation; i.e., if you're a follower of the M2C citation cartel, you'll be happy to see your biases confirmed. There are plenty of citations of the usual suspects, all members of the M2C citation cartel.

However, if you still believe the teachings of the prophets, you might find parts of the book troublesome. And if you are a nonmember, a questioning member, or a youth seeking for answers, you will likely come away hoping that there is a much stronger case for the Book of Mormon than what is offered in this book.

For a positive review, read anything from Book of Mormon Central. Brother Callister is donating the proceeds of the book to Book of Mormon Central, so naturally, Book of Mormon Central and its employees are promoting the book as much as they can. He's a featured speaker at the FairMormon conference as well.

If you buy this book, you are helping to promote and promulgate M2C.
_____

Here's an example of a positive review:

http://associationmormonletters.org/blog/reviews/current-reviews/callister-a-case-for-the-book-of-mormon-reviewed-by-trevor-holyoak/

My take is a little different.

The book makes a good opening statement for a case for the Book of Mormon, but because it relies so much on material from FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central and the rest of the M2C citation cartel, it is ultimately not all that helpful for people who seek answers to questions posed by knowledgeable critics.

Here, I'll give just two examples of the issues I noted.
_____

At one point, Callister writes:

To suggest that Joseph Smith dictated more than five hundred pages of history and doctrine with no notes or rewrites (only minor changes to his original draft, and most of them grammatical, without the aid of any gospel scholars, and without the power of God, in approximately sixty-five working days, is totally incomprehensible and inconsistent with my experience and the experience of every doctrinal writer I know. It reminds me of the observation made by Hank Smith, a popular Latter-day Saint speaker and teacher: "A person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with an opinion." 35

35. Excerpt from various talks given by Hank Smith and confirmed to the author in an email dated Sept. 1, 2017.

While I agree that Joseph's dictation of the Book of Mormon is a demonstration of the gift and power of God, citing one's personal experience is not a persuasive argument. I'm told that Joseph only wrote out one sermon. Yet he delivered over 200 for which we have no record, and many more for which we have at least some record. In most if not all of these, he cited scripture from memory. 

Another problem is the quotation from Hank Smith in the footnote. It sounds a lot like this one from Leonard Ravenhill:

“A man with an experience of God is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.”

Sourcing quotations is often difficult, but one must wonder if this one originated with Hank Smith or Ravenhill.
_____

Here is a second example. In his book Brother Callister discusses the book The Late War based on a study by the Johnsons. 

Here's a point I make in an upcoming article:

The Johnson study [on The Late War] received a strange reaction from LDS scholars. They raised two objections. First, they sought to distance Joseph Smith from The Late War, claiming there is no evidence he ever read the book. Second, they claimed there were more differences than similarities.

For example, in his discussion of The Late War, Tad R. Callister, an LDS General Authority and former General Sunday School President, recently wrote, “I doubt that Joseph read any of the books alleged by the critics to be sources for the Book of Mormon before the translation process commenced. There is no historical evidence confirming that he did.”[1]

...

Despite his belief that Joseph did not read the book, Callister recognized the possibility. “In the event that Joseph read any of these books, no doubt he learned some words or phrases that enhanced his vocabulary that would be available for future use in translation—that would seem natural to me.”

It does seem natural; in fact, this is evidence that Joseph did translate the text in his own language. One wonders, why did Callister first argue that Joseph didn’t read the book?

Callister does not say, but we can infer that it could be because the current narrative among LDS historians holds that Joseph did not translate the plates; instead, these historians teach that Joseph merely read English words that appeared on a stone in a hat.[2] In that case, he wouldn’t need an “enhanced vocabulary” from The Late War or any other source.

The second argument by LDS scholars—that there are more differences than similarities between The Late War and the Book of Mormon—is an argument against outright plagiarism, but it rings hollow because it does not refute the critics’ point that The Late War influenced at least the vocabulary Joseph used in producing the Book of Mormon. Differences between the two books do not erase similarities. The question becomes how much influence, not whether there was any influence at all.

---

[1] Callister (2019): 79.

[2] See the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&_r=1. The Church’s web page teaches Primary children that “Joseph used a special rock called a seer stone to translate the plates” and that “Joseph didn’t have much schooling, so he wasn’t good at writing or spelling.” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/2017/02/golden-plates-to-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

The Fighting Preacher - Willard Bean

If you haven't seen the movie The Fighting Preacher, you need to go ASAP. It's an outstanding depiction of a little-known aspect of LDS Church history.

97% on Rotten Tomatoes!

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_fighting_preacher

This is the story of Willard Bean, who was called on a mission to Palmyra in the early 1900s.

The boxing ring he set up was in the building across Main Street from today's Oliver Cowdery Memorial, too.

The photo in this article shows the boxing ring:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900064140/new-film-the-fighting-preacher-is-the-best-church-history-story-youve-never-head-of-director-says.html

The movie is doing some good business, but not as good as it deserves. Go see it. And take someone.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=thefightingpreacher.htm

Topics we can't talk about

https://www.lbcoaching.co.za/surfacing-the-elephant-in-the-room/

There is an obvious reality when it comes to problems: if you can't talk about them, you can't fix them.

This is the elephant-in-the-room problem.

It is classic organizational behavior to ignore problems and pretend they don't exist. Management often considers it disloyal to discuss certain problems. Here is a good example from an article in Forbes that I link to at the end of this post.

After completing a culture assessment for a major corporation I was doing my “What? So what? and Now what?” presentation to the senior management team. That’s where I describe the results, point out the implications of the findings, and make recommendations for change. One of the findings was that the CEO had a shoot-the-messenger reputation that was stifling open dialogue on key operational issues.

In sharing some of the open-ended comments from the survey, I put up a slide with a direct quote from one of the anonymous respondents: “I would love to share my ideas with [the CEO], but it’s not safe to speak your mind around here. All he seems to want is a bunch of yes-men.”

Within a nanosecond of reading that comment the CEO slammed his fist on the table and shouted “That’s ridiculous! Find out who said that and usher him out the door! We don’t have room in this organization for people who are too weak-kneed to speak up.” All the other executives sort of cowered in silence at this display of fury. Then I simply said: “I. Rest. My. Case.” After a long pause the CEO smiled, then chuckled, then broke into a hearty laugh.

The elephant in the room (the CEO’s bullying style) had been identified, and now the CEO and his team (and later others) were ready to discuss the undiscussable. They were finally on their way to taming the elephant. And taming that elephant led to identifying and taming others.

_____

We see the elephant-in-the-room in the Church as well.

I, along with many other members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, notice that there are elephants in the room that no one can talk about.

It's unfortunate because many of these elephants exist because of past mistakes, and these mistakes can be resolved fairly easily be refocusing on the teachings of the prophets instead of the teachings of modern intellectuals.

For example, there is a lot of confusion about Church history and Book of Mormon historicity that people don't feel free to discuss. The recent Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon geography  expressly prohibits discussing the topic in Church settings.

Treating these issues as elephants in the room doesn't prevent people from thinking about them. It just moves the conversation to other forums, notably the Internet. Web pages such as Mormon Stories and CES Letter thrive by focusing on these elephants in the room.

As long-time readers know, I've addressed some of these topics in my blogs and books. There is more to come.

In the meantime, there is an excellent discussion of the elephant-in-the-room problem here:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodgerdeanduncan/2014/10/14/is-there-an-elephant-in-the-room-name-it-and-tame-it/#6d99856734dd

Cumorah was in New York in 1923

In 1923, Church leaders recognized that the Hill Cumorah in western New York was the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6. It was the scene of the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites, just as President Oliver Cowdery described it in Letter VII.

BYU Studies has an excellent article on the commemoration that year of the 100th anniversary of Moroni's first visit to Joseph Smith. I posted comments about it on my new blog, where I am accumulating everything relevant to Cumorah.

www.thehillcumorah.com

The question to consider: What will the 200th anniversary be like?

Unless there is a course-correction to the current trend, in 2023 any celebration at the "hill in New York" will involve only the set of plates Joseph obtained from Moroni's stone box on the hill. There will be no mention of Jaredites or Nephites having lived in that area.

Flooding along the Mississippi

Nice interactive NASA image that compares normal with flood-stage rivers in the Midwest.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145029/flooding-continues-along-the-mississippi

Those of us who think the Book of Mormon events took place in this area think the cities sunk in 3 Nephi were destroyed and buried underneath these rivers. When we look at the map, we can see how and why that would happen.