This is not a “science and religion” post. There are lots of very good books on that general topic, and the LDS Church gets along with science fairly well these days, at least since the death of Joseph Fielding Smith. A “science and Mormonism” post would be an entirely different post. What I’m talking about is pseudoscience, the many fringe theories and beliefs that followers paint in science-y colors but that are rejected by mainstream scientists and scholars in the field. The primary question to discuss is whether Mormonism or the LDS Church somehow makes followers and believers more susceptible to embracing pseudoscience views. First some background, then we’ll get to the good stuff.
What is Pseudoscience? That’s a tougher question than you might think. No one who embraces a pseudoscience theory considers it to be pseudoscience; that’s a label bestowed by mainstream scientists or scholars who want to marginalize that theory and those who push it. I just read On the Fringe: Where Science Meets Pseudoscience (OUP, 2021) by Michael D. Gordin, a short little book that’s a fun read. Chapter One reviews what’s called the demarcation problem: how one distinguishes between a legitimate scientific field or theory and a pseudoscientific one. It turns out there is no definitive definition or rubric to properly make that distinction. It’s sort of a field-by-field exercise, sometimes with a grey area or two. A new theory might initially have very little support from mainstream scientists (for example, “continental drift” when it was first proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1912) and even be ridiculed, only to later become more widely accepted as supporting data later emerge. Alternatively, a widely supported view (such as the existence of ether, a medium once thought necessary to transmit electromagnetic waves through space) may, over time, move to the margins and be supplanted by a better theory. Gordin calls these mainstream views that are later discredited and move to the margins “vestigial sciences.”
But in most cases it’s not hard to identify a pseudoscience. Here are some examples from the book. Astrology and alchemy, two vestigial sciences. Aryan physics, Lysenkoism, and eugenics, three hyperpoliticized pseudosciences. Phrenology, Creationism, cryptozoology, cosmic catastrophism (think Immanuel Velikovsky), aliens and UFOs, and flat Earth theories, all examples of fighting establishment science. Mesmerism, spiritualism, and parapsychology (which initially found a home in some universities) are “mind over matter” pseudosciences. You could generalize this beyond pseudoscience and just talk about “science denialism” that seems to be on the rise everywhere these days, but a pseudoscience field generally has a theory, an argument or two, and some data. Not enough to convince mainstream scientists or scholars, but at least there is a proposal to consider. Science deniers, for example anti-vaxxers, generally don’t even have a proposal, they are just rejecting the mainstream scientific view.
Now let’s look at some Mormon examples.
Mormonism and Phrenology. Phrenology is the idea that the contours and bumps and shape of the skull provides objective insight, data if you will, into the mental capabilities or personality dispositions of the subject. It was really big in the 19th century before becoming a vestigial science in the 20th century. And Mormons were really into it. There’s a long Wikipedia article, Phrenology and the Latter Day Saint movement. Included are phrenological readings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Willard Richards, all published in the Nauvoo Wasp. It will be the most interesting ten minutes of your day. But phrenology has few adherents today and is not a present-day pseudoscience problem for Mormons. Let’s get more contemporary.
Mormonism and Mound Builders. Who were the Mound Builders, you ask? They were the people who built the archeological structures referred to as mounds, which were found all over the Eastern United States as settlers moved west in the 18th and 19th centuries. Modernly, it is undisputed that it was Native Americans who built them. But early American settlers simply could not accept that ancestors of the American Indians they encountered could possibly have built such large and elaborate structures. Instead, those early Americans hypothesized that an earlier highly civilized race had inhabited the continent, built the structures, then disappeared, possibly annihilated by the savage ancestors of the American Indians. That’s the story they told. But it was an entirely misguided story. It was, in fact, ancestors of the American Indians who built them. There were no Mound Builders. That was a piece of fiction, created by early Americans because of their prejudice against American Indians. You can read the whole story in the Wikipedia article “Mound Builders.” If you’re really serious, you can go find a copy of Robert Silverberg’s book The Mound Builders (Ohio Univ. Press, 1986). I thought it was simply coincidence that the author shared a name with the famed science fiction writer. When I found and read a copy of the book, I discovered that it actually was Robert Silverberg the science fiction writer who wrote The Mound Builders.
It shouldn’t be hard for the reader to connect the dots here. Most Mormons believe, as taught by the Church, that Israelites crossed an ocean, developed a civilization in the Americas, and built all kinds of structures all around the continent. Joseph Smith never came across a native artifact or read an account of Mesoamerican or South American ruins that he did not attribute to Nephites. So it’s hard to escape the conclusion that 21st-century Mormons and the LDS Church continue to accept the Mound Builders theory, except we call them Nephites. Of course, at the same time the LDS view is that the Lamanites, cousins of the Nephites, were, in fact, the ancestors of the American Indians, so one might argue that the LDS view is, in some sense, congruent with the modern view.
Few Mormons would agree with the statement, “I believe in the Mound Builders.” But that’s how pseudoscience works. No follower of a pseudoscience would say, “Yes, I believe in pseudoscience.” A Mormon would say, “No, it wasn’t Mound Builders who built the mounds and other ruins, it was the Nephites, who were overcome by the Lamanites and disappeared from history. The Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” I think a fair summary is (1) in the 21st century, the Mound Builders theory is plainly regarded as an example of pseudoscience; and (2) that most Mormons subscribe to the Mound Builders theory without recognizing that’s what they believe or even knowing about the earlier Mound Builders theory and its later rejection. Of course, FAIR has an article explaining that the Mound Builders theory and the Nephite theory are two totally different things. And there’s a nice article at the Deseret News from 2007 about the change in the Introduction included at the front of LDS editions of the Book of Mormon, when the claim that the Lamanites were the “principal ancestors of the American Indians” was downgraded to “among the ancestors of the American Indians.”
Is the Word of Wisdom a Pseudoscience? You could write a book on this topic, so I’ll keep it short and let readers weigh in. The LDS Church maintains that “the Word of Wisdom” is the Lord’s law of health. That’s the title of a 2021 article in the Liahona (that’s what we call The Ensign now) by a Seventy: “The Lord’s Law of Health.” So coffee and tea are bad for you. But candy and ice cream, no problem. I remember visiting China and going out to dinner with a large group, where tea is what you drink at a restaurant with dinner if you’re not drinking beer. Nope, can’t drink tea, that’s bad for me. How about a Coca-Cola? [If you’re a milk-drinking American, you won’t find milk, but if you ask for yogurt you’ll get a drinkable glass of yogurt that is a pretty good substitute. Next time I’ll ask, “How about a yogurt?”]
Of course, modern apologists will note that tobacco is certainly bad for your health, but not recommend (as noted in D&C 89) that it’s good for some things, as “an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.” So D&C 89 is sort of hit and miss. Given how much of D&C 89 is simply ignored or intentionally misinterpreted in the present, I think it’s a mistake to talk about The Word of Wisdom and D&C 89 as the same thing. D&C 89 is an LDS text written in 1833. The Word of Wisdom, as required by members of the Church in 2021, is whatever LDS leaders say it is. The two (the text and the WoW) don’t have very much in common.
Is the Word of Wisdom an example of a pseudoscience? It labels some healthy things (green tea) as unhealthy and permits a lot of unhealthy things (twinkies, McDonald’s food). What else would you call a health law that has very little to do with our current medical understanding of what’s healthy and what isn’t?
Are Mormons more susceptible to pseudoscience? This is the big question. Does Mormonism make its followers or believers more susceptible to accepting or embracing various pseudoscience theories? If so, is that just because of Mormonism, or would say Evangelicals or Catholics also have a similar problem? I’m inclined to think yes, to a certain extent being a Mormon opens the door to a lot of strange beliefs, but not every Mormon walks through that door. The LDS approach to discovering or affirming truth (think about it, pray about it, and if you feel good, it’s true) certainly has a role to play in the LDS scenario.
What do you think? Do Mormons have a weakness or fondness for pseudoscience? Or does the gospel light of truth guide Mormons to avoid falling into pseudoscience traps that ensnare other folks? Or is there no correlation at all?
Wheat & Tares 
I am not convinced there is a correlation. Sure, some Mormons fall for pseudoscience, just as non-Mormons do.
The very definition of faith supports pseudo science.
When people believe in the magic of religion, they will believe in the magic of anything. And don’t be coming back with the silly notion that any lack of understanding of a subject can be portrayed as magical. That may have worked 200 years ago but it doesn’t today.
Are Mormons susceptible to pseudoscience? I don’t know. Are they more susceptible than the average person? Probably. We all know how the power of confirmation bias affects our ability to analyze information. BYU professor Kerry Muehlstein is famous for taking the stand that as he investigates Egyptology, he assumes the Book of Abraham is “true” and then goes from there. I think that many TBMs use a similar thought process: x is true and if I find supporting information, terrific. If I run into contradicting information, no thanks. And since unofficial sources (like most of the Internet) are more likely to contradict official teachings, it’s better to just avoid it.
I doubt that I’m the only one who is sometimes perplexed at how many very smart accomplished people in the Church are remarkably uncurious about Church history and truth claims. And I think it has everything to do with how they were trained to process information about religion. And I find that many of these same people approach the news the same way. That’s why perfectly smart people can watch Fox News and yet complain about media bias. (note to you progressives: you sometimes do the same thing with your liberal sources so don’t get too high and mighty). But within the Church, the bias seems to correspond with the right.
I don’t consider the WoW to be pseudoscience because it was never purported to be scientifically-backed in the first place. It’s a quirky religious health code with dubious origins (really an excuse for JS to avoid cleaning up his own tobacco spit) and it wasn’t enforced until the 1930s. Perhaps you could consider it retroactive pseudoscience, if you take into account all the contemporary Church lessons that claim modern medical science vindicates the WoW, while conveniently ignoring the well-proven health benefits of green tea and wine in moderation. But even then, the WoW has been frequently reinterpreted and is subject to change; for example, Coca Cola was taboo for Mormons when I was growing up, but it’s not anymore.
But to the point of the original post, I think Mormons are more susceptible to pseudoscience than most because its a belief system that relies on magical thinking and “choosing to believe”, with Church leaders that specifically counsel members to avoid doubt like a disease and to stay away from unapproved sources. Critical thinking is discouraged, and official Church curriculum gets more watered-down and vapid every year. Mormons are also vulnerable because many pseudoscientific movements are connected to affinity fraud schemes (such as essential oils and vitamin supplements) or their ideas are promoted and gain traction using warped versions of Church teachings (anti-vax/anti-mask movements).
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Another resource that may be of interest to readers but that didn’t get worked into my post is Dan Vogel’s Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon: Religious Solutions from Columbus to Joseph Smith (Signature Books, 1986). It’s available for free online at the Signature Books Library at this link:
http://signaturebookslibrary.org/scripture-test/
I must have failed at Mormonism… I have never once considered the Mound Builders and Nephites to be the same people. And I have not eaten at McDonald’s in thirty years. If I am going to eat a hamburger, I’ll go for one with actual flavor. But I do know that tobacco was used as a de-wormer for cattle. Something to work into that next Word of Wisdom lesson!
But I have found that a significant number of my neighbors are big into herbal supplements and many EQ discussions degrade into a bit of medical quackery.
I don’t believe Mormons are more susceptible to believing in pseudoscience than other people. My impression is that most people are quite susceptible to pseudoscience and many (most?) people really don’t have the skills to be able to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience. If the average person has an elementary school level of scientific literacy they are going to have trouble with discerning this.
Mormons might not necessarily be more prone to believing in the larger array of pseudoscience than the general population. They are, however, more prone to believe Mormon-specific pseudoscience such as Book of Mormon historicity claims.
josh h,
Thanks for bringing up Muhlestein’s assumption framework. He just assumes that the Book of Abraham is true, just like non-believers assume it isn’t true, and bases his research on those assumptions. Using his framework, I can just as easily assume that unicorns are real and seek for all sorts of little hints and clues and anomalies to latch onto to put forth a good argument that unicorns are indeed real. Heck, a large number of people believe in the existence of Bigfoot and write all sorts of things about how Bigfoot is real and apply Muhlestein’s methodology, searching for all sorts of circumstantial hints and clues to confirm their baseless assumptions. And how did Muhlestein arrive at his assumption? Years of social conditioning in a rigid religious environment that routinely shamed people for disbelieving and awarded people for maintaining belief amid challenging circumstances. And how did non-believers arrive at their assumptions that the Book of Abraham isn’t true. A rigid religious environment that shamed them for believing the Book of Abraham? No. They arrived at their assumptions the same way that Muhlestein arrived at his assumptions that reincarnation isn’t true.
The question is not whether Mormons are more susceptible to pseudoscience, it is whether younger Mormons are. The answer to that question is a resounding “Yes!”
The irrefutable fact is that alcohol and tobacco use has created devastation, just as indicated by the D&C. Disease, homelessness, and broken families are rampant precisely because of this sinful behavior.
The same goes for the prohibition on wanton sexuality that is contained in every one of the Standard Works. That prohibition has been proven justified by the disease and broken homes that follow the violation of that commandments.
And yet, younger members ignore the proven, scientific facts supporting the wisdom of these commandments. They follow the counsel of Post Malone and Cardi B instead. They flock to the honky tonks, Dairy Queen’s, and 7-Elevens in search of harmful substances and illicit one-night stands with the assurance from celebrities that there will be no harmful consequences. That is the very definition of pseudoscience.
JCS is back, and so are the honky tonks! Oh, how I’ve missed the honky tonks! Although I have never met anyone who has had an illicit one-night stand at a 7-11. Does that happen by the ATM or behind the Slurpee machines?
As for pseudoscience, it’s a bit of a chicken-and-the-egg deal. I think those willing to believe pseudoscience are probably more likely to believe in magic spectacles and golden plates, so many are drawn to the Church, which has some serious pseudoscience in our foundational claims. But at the same time, we see no shortage of quackery and nonsense outside the Church, either.
My gut response is kind of “yes, Mormons are more susceptible” but I don’t think that holds up.
Were Mormons susceptible to anti-vax conspiracies? Yes, but so was a huge chunk of the rest of the U.S. so we haven’t cornered the market on that. I would be curious about the overlap of religiousity and anti-vax in the U.S.
Are Mormons susceptible to a lot of “health” products / MLM’s? Yes, but again, lots of others are too.
In addition, there are a lot of pseudoscience claims I think Mormons are LESS susceptible to because they arguably contradict with LDS teachings. I think Mormons I know generally don’t believe in things like psychics (only prophets!), ghosts (at least not of the non-ancestral variety), alien abductions (because God created the other worlds, too), etc. For sure there are exceptions to all of that, but in my experience Mormons can be super rational and scientific EXCEPT when it comes to Church claims.
When it comes to LDS Church claims, all bets are off.
First of all, thank you, David, for reminding me of Robert Silverberg. The first SciFi book I ever read was “Planet of Death” in the junior high library back in the early 70’s. I may have just ordered it on Kindle.
I have to say that it’s a mixed bag for me: As many have mentioned, a Mormon upbringing often includes a healthy dose of magical thinking and latching tightly onto anything that could possibly be construed as evidence of truth claims, the lore, and miracles. Most other areas of life – not so much.
I don’t know that it is any more prominent in the church than with other religionists. It is ironic that we can dismiss other religions’ “pseudoscience” more easily than our own.
And I’m proud to say that once folks like JCS were saying the same things about my generation. And at my stage of life, I have the imagination, experience, and means to rip it up way better than those young whippersnappers.
Interesting how the latest study discusses wine in moderation. Science is interesting.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/one-glass-wine-day-shrinks-23285707
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28735-5
For the original article.
Green tea has been subjected to some interesting research as well.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788727/
Pseudoscience is regularly displayed in W&T. Every single article by Rick B is full of completely unscientific nonsense. He then censors any criticism of the ridiculous theories.
John W,
I hope it doesn’t seem like I’m stalking you. It’s just that you’re hitting on some themes that are important to me.
I think you oversimplify Muhlestein’s position. He doesn’t make the assumption that the BoA is true merely because that’s what he’s been trained to believe. He makes the assumption that it’s true in a scientific sense because he’s learned that it’s true by other epistemological means.
If you learn that something is true by other epistemological methods but cannot show it is true by the scientific method, can you then use that something to support scientific studies (ie the facts you would look for if something was true in a scientific sense, then use as foundations of further research having shown those facts to be true)? I’m not convinced. You shouldn’t assume that something is true in a scientific sense unless it has been shown to be true in a scientific sense.
It’s not just that you *shouldn’t* assume something is true in a scientific sense unless it can be supported by science. You *can’t*. There is no legitimate scientific epistemology in which the spirit confirmed something. That’s faith, not science, and it’s not reproducible.
Pontius,
I know that I love my wife. But how do I utilize the tools of science to prove my love? I can’t, really. Even so, I can gather enough information by means of those tools to build a good case for the scientific plausibility of my love.
Jack, you and I both know that’s not a particularly useful analogy here.
Why not? I believe that individuals can gain knowledge by the spirit of revelation that is just has real — if not more so — than one’s own subjective feelings of love.
It’s been interesting—well, maddening actually—to see many of my fellow millennial exmos hop right on the astrology train.
And the people are really missing out when it comes to the WoW. Think of how much more productive bishops could be after an espresso or two!
Josh h
As someone who listens to/ reads a wide variety of news sources (including some Fox daytime panels discussions that include liberal commentators) there is no question that most news sources have agendas. Case in point: during the presidential election, the NY Post ran a story about Hunter Biden’’s laptop that was deemed as fake news. Recently, the liberal NY Times acknowledged the story has merit but not one of the big 3 TV networks has pick up the story. News sources can show their bias by what they exclude. Occasionally, while listening to NPR , I find myself yelling at the radio because they left out part of the story.
Down votes on JCS: does your vote dispute that alcohol destroys homes? Sometimes I scratch my head over down votes.
The short answer is no, I don’t think there is a huge correlation, at least in comparison to other religions. Some of the most devout and orthodox members I know are also some of the most anti-pseudoscience people I know. Others not so much.
You hinted the line between pseudoscience and science can be thin, or that the former can eventually become the latter. I appreciated your mention of cryptozoology, which I really enjoy. I read a lot of material from self-proclaimed cryptozoologists. Many of these people have advanced degrees in actual sciences, and apply that knowledge to cryptozoology with many of the same standards and practices, to the best of their ability. They know it’s not something they are likely to make a living out of, but they find it both fun and fascinating, which is exactly how I approach some of these things. And cryptozoology isn’t just Bigfoot, Yeti, and Loch Ness. When a new member of the mongoose family was discovered on Madagascar in 2010, I learned about it first through cryptozoology channels before I saw it in mainstream news.
I can see how many would feel the hobby is strange (a hobby is really all it is when all is said and done), but for the longest time I couldn’t for the life of me figure out why anyone would pay $50 dollars, multiple times a year, to watch grown men dribble balls down a court and shoot baskets. It wasn’t until I was gifted some NBA tickets that I could start to understand the allure, even if it wasn’t exactly my cup of tea. And while I’d be lying if I said it wouldn’t be cool to have conclusive proof that a small population of North American apes exist, I’d like to think I still have my head on pretty straight. Additionally, it’s been my experience that dabbling with these things ultimately ends up increasing my appreciation for actual or mainstream science, so there’s that.
For me personally, I think there are two sides of it. I love the doctrine of the Church, and the scope of our beliefs. I’ll admit it makes me want to believe other things. But at the same time, I’ve always taken seriously the counsel to study things out. I’ve never felt critical thinking was incompatible with being a member, despite stories from others. I’ve always felt discernment went beyond the spiritual. I feel like if one saw me listening to someone tell something fantastical, my eyes and face would say believer hook, line, and sinker, but if he or she stayed around long enough to hear me ask questions, he or she might peg me a skeptic.
Josh H wrote “I doubt that I’m the only one who is sometimes perplexed at how many very smart accomplished people in the Church are remarkably uncurious about Church history and truth claims.”
I think there are a few reasons for this. For some, I think the intelligence conveyed by the Holy Ghost regarding the Church’s claims is more than enough. Why go further unless you’d simply like to be more well-versed in Church history? One might simply reserve that curiosity for other aspects of humanity. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but I know some who are that way. Additionally, I think some of them have looked into Church history quite deeply and simply moved on. I feel like some things in Church History get researched and don’t quite line up with what we were taught in primary. But with even more research (and I’m not talking apologetics), one sometimes finds the primary narrative takes shape again, if a little more multidimensional this time. I’m sympathetic of intellectuals who have left the Church over truth claims. I quickly become less sympathetic when they are dismissive of other intellectuals who rival their own intelligence and are intellectually at peace with the truth claims of the Church.
I feel like I can kind of see where Jack is coming from. And I don’t think science is completely immune to shifting its own standards. I don’t think anyone started out studying gravity assuming it didn’t exist. They saw its effects, and went from there. What Jack describes may not be measurable through science now, but we may very well have the instruments to do it one day (admittedly, this will probably be during the millennium or beyond). Also, as I get older, I see more and more similarities with the scientific method and exercising faith. More, I think, than any religious or secular person would care to admit.
Jack,
There is no body of peer reviewed replicatable science that demonstrates that you do not love your wife. The epistemology you use to arrive at that conclusion, in fact, is supported by psychology and neuroscience.
On the other hand, Muhlestein’s conclusions about the translation of the Book of Abraham fly in the face of a widely accepted peer reviewed body of scholarly work.
If you want to argue that Muhlestein’s assertions are not based on his beliefs, I would suggest you come up with a better argument.
Jack,
“[Muhlestein] doesn’t make the assumption that the BoA is true merely because that’s what he’s been trained to believe. He makes the assumption that it’s true in a scientific sense because he’s learned that it’s true by other epistemological means.”
Two points. First, we can’t explain Muhlestein’s decision to even try to defend the Book of Abraham as true through what he believes are scientific methods without factoring in the very important fact that he was raised and spent his young adulthood in a restrictive religious Mormon environment, which has routinely throughout his life sought to uphold, that would shame him for even entertaining the idea that the Book of Abraham is not historical and would reward him for maintaining belief in it against criticism and skepticism.
Second, the very methodology, not just the content and prose, that he has employed to reach his “assumption” that the Book of Abraham is not recognized as validly scientific. What original documents has he based his views on? Oh wait, we have an original document, and a translation of it, and it appears to be the Breathing Permit of Hor, and has nothing to do with what is written in the Book of Abraham. All Muhlestein does is borrow from Nibley’s playbook of parallelomania, which in the scientific world is seen as nothing more than a desperate grasping of straws to justify belief in extraordinary claims, such as conspiracy theories and traditional religion historical claims which religions insist its members uphold with soft threats of ostracism and social punishment.. Muhlestein is an apophenic (sees connections in otherwise unrelated and random data), just like Nibley. Fear of shame from his culture, damage to his reputation, and cognitive dissonance in his own mind have made him that way.
“What Jack describes may not be measurable through science now, but we may very well have the instruments to do it one day”
Hmm. Sounds like Trump’s lawyers and henchpeople talking about how all that evidence that the 2020 election was stolen is going to emerge some day. Just you wait!
Robert,
I agree that science can be brought into play as a supportive measure. But it can only help to establish some degree of plausibility with regard to the highly subjective knowledge that every person possesses.
Re: Muhlestein’s Conclusions: That’s a different question than the one I was addressing. I was trying to demonstrate how science comes up short on measuring other kinds of legitimate epistemologies–including that upon which Muhlestein bases his assumption that the BoA is true.
John W,
On your first point: that’s certainly something that might be considered as circumstantial evidence. Even so, the question of whether or not he has learned that the BoA is true by means of other epistemologies remains outside the purview of science for the most part.
As to your second point: measuring Muhlestein’s claims vis-a-vis the book itself against the opinions of experts who disagree with him might reveal some real flaws in his conclusions. Even so, those opinions cannot finally prove one way or the other that his spiritual witness of the book is true.
All of that said, I might be misunderstanding brother Muhlestein’s basis for proceeding with the assumption that the BoA is true. But if I’m understanding him correctly he has good reason (IMO) to move forward with that assumption–even though science might have difficulty measuring the epistemological means involved in getting that kind of knowledge.
Eli,
Nice comment. I agree that all truth will eventually be circumscribed into one whole. But as for now we have to muddle through the best we can, keeping Elder Oak’s counsel in mind: to let reason of the first word and revelation the last.
“…to let reason *have* the first word and revelation the last.”
Re: BoA / apologetics, I think there is a big difference between going in with an assumption vs. going in with a conclusion.
The scientific method starts with a hypothesis (a statement / fact that one hypothesizes could be true) but then the hypothesis is tested. If the test results show that the hypothesis was wrong, the hypothesis should be discarded or revised. The fact that a scientist starts out wanting or hoping to prove something is OK so long as the scientist is willing to modify his/her conclusions based on evidence.
BoA apologists may have an assumption or hypothesis based on a spiritual witness or whatever, but if they then set down a path of investigation with the sole purpose of PROVING that hypothesis through other means, rather than genuinely exploring and testing and potentially abandoning or revising it, then in my view they just aren’t all that reliable or credible. If a BoA apologist’s reputation, personal testimony, income / profession, reputation, family, and eternal salvation is at stake if they were to change their assumption based on new information … well, I suspect that they are very unlikely to go down that path. And if someone is totally closed to an alternative view no matter how insurmountable the evidence, that person is not a true scholar / academic in my view. They’re more like a lawyer. (Hence why the Church tends to employ lawyers as its historians instead of historians …)
Jack, you may say you love your wife, but if you treat her poorly, then your feeling / assumption of love is disproven by observable phenomenon (your behavior), and your belief while perhaps sincerely-held is not credible. (Obviously, that’s hypothetical, I have no reason to believe you don’t treat your wife well.)
Jack, an observation that this conversation sounds like people talking past one another without some sort of agreed-upon definition of a legitimate epistemology. It sounds like yours includes some kind of spiritual witness. Can you flesh it out further?
jaredsbrother,
I think you’re probably right that we’re talking past each other to some degree.
Yes, I believe there are other legitimate epistemologies that are found outside the purview of science–though there’s usually some degree of overlap. And I certainly believe that revelation is a legitimate way of knowing–even the most reliable way of knowing in some instances. And so, as it relates to Kerry Muhlestein, I’m merely stating why I believe he has good reason to go forward with his assumption that the Book of Abraham is true, i.e., he has learned of its truthfulness through a reliable means of getting knowledge.
@Jack, why do you believe that revelation is a “reliable means of getting knowledge”? What evidence is there of that?
To be clear, I’m all for personal revelation in making decisions in one’s own life. But I don’t see a shred of evidence that people can come to accurate conclusions about historical or factual claims (such as the historicity of the Book of Abraham) based on revelation.
That doesn’t mean you can’t, through revelation, determine that the teachings of the Book of Abraham are good teachings that bear good fruits in your life and are, in some sense, “Truth.” But that’s *very* different than factual historicity and the work that apologists do.
Elisa,
Re: Going in with a conclusion: In matters of faith there’s sort of a dance between belief and knowledge that leads us from one conclusion to another–grace for grace, if you will. In my own experience some of those conclusions have become rock solid–and it doesn’t matter what other disciplines or epistemological approaches are brought to bear on that knowledge. God lives, Jesus rose from the grave, the modern apostles hold the keys of the priesthood. These are things that I know in ways that the tools of science simply can’t get at–at least not to the extent that is required to make my conclusions falsifiable.
We approach other things in life with a similar sense of tentative conclusions impelling us forward. Think of marriage. There are so many unknowns about the future–and yet everyday couples are crossing the rather frightening threshold of joining their lives together. And they do it based upon something that is more than mere fact gathering. The same might be said of judging a piece of music to be good. We can arrive at a conclusion based solely on how it resonates with our artistic sensibilities without having a complete understanding of the mechanics involved in its composition.
So it is with an endeavor such as an apologetic approach to the scriptures. I see no conflict whatsoever with going in with the basic conclusion that the BoA is true–if indeed one has received a witness to that effect from the holy spirit. Now that’s not to say that someone like Kerry Muhlestein will have all of the details of its history and provenance and so forth correct from the get go. No–he’ll likely be spending the rest of his life uncovering those details–which, I might add, will probably necessitate a course correction here and there during the process. But even so, the general notion that the book is true is not likely to change because of the reliability of the source of that knowledge.
Re: Science proving or disproving love: As I say, scientific methodologies can certainly help to establish a sense plausibility. But they are limited in their scope when it comes to proving something so subjective as human emotions. And certainly, in my case, you’d be hard pressed to explain the unlikely union of such an angelic beauty with such a lowly beast.
JCSpring:
“ They flock to the honky tonks, Dairy Queen’s, and 7-Elevens in search of harmful substances and illicit one-night stands”
Not so much
From Scientific American, January 2022:
“A recent study evaluating what is happening in the U.S. has added to the pile of evidence, showing declines from 2009 to 2018 in all forms of partnered sexual activity,
Between 2009 and 2018, the proportion of adolescents reporting no sexual activity, either alone or with partners, rose from 28.8 percent to 44.2 percent among young men and from 49.5 percent in 2009 to 74 percent among young women.“
Jack, Muhlestein was raised Mormon. That’s how he first arrived at his position that the Book of Abraham is historical. Furthermore, he has remained a believing Mormon throughout his life and has employment at a church-owned university where he would most certainly be fired for reversing his position and saying that the Book of Abraham isn’t historical. His ability to be objective about the Book of Abraham is seriously questionable given those basic facts about his life. I mean it is like asking how much we should trust propagandists of repressive regimes about what they say about the regime.
“those opinions cannot finally prove one way or the other that his spiritual witness of the book is true”
And it cannot be proved that he had a spiritual witness (whatever that even means) that the Book of Abraham is true. I invoke the Hitchens Rule here: that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
John,
Maybe I’ve been unclear in my arguments. I’m suggesting that Muhlestein’s assumption (that the Book of Abraham is true) is based on evidence that’s good enough for *him* alone. IMO, he’d never assume that he could prove the book to be true to anyone else.
Jack, Muhlestein is a PhD in Egyptology with an academic job who has published and lectured extensively about his views on the Book of Abraham. The idea that he would never “assume that he could prove the [Book of Abraham] you be true to anyone else” is preposterous. I saw a video of him saying that people who left the church over the Book of Abraham are “going to be sorry” because of all the “evidence” that he and other believing apologists have found In defense of a historical Book of Abraham. In those words too. What he’s not saying is that his target audience consists entirely of Mormons and a select few Mormon lay skeptics and doubters who have a cursory knowledge of Egyptology. He’s found a lot of circumstantial evidence and extremely loose parallels that don’t actually prove anything but would take considerable time and research to fully debunk. He’s fully cocksure that he can convince questioning believers that there is evidence of the Book of Abraham’s historicity. What he won’t tell you is how he can’t manage to convince a wider non-Mormon academic audience that his views on the Book of Abraham are remotely legitimate or worthy of any serious consideration. Muhlestein is an arrogant ignoramus extraordinaire.
“The idea that he would never “assume that he could prove the [Book of Abraham] you be true to anyone else” is preposterous.”
He’ll not hesitate to present evidence for its historicity but he knows that he can’t convince anyone that it’s inspired–that’s what I mean to say. All of this goes back to my comment about why he assumes the book is true. And that’s because — so far as I can tell by what I’ve read — he has a spiritual witness of its truthfulness–and that’s the truth that he can’t prove to anyone else. Everyone has to figure that out for themselves.
“What he won’t tell you is how he can’t manage to convince a wider non-Mormon academic audience that his views on the Book of Abraham are remotely legitimate or worthy of any serious consideration.”
That’s how the world responds to the restored gospel in general. Why should we expect Muhlestein or Gee to fare any better? Once word gets out that the text in question is a product of modern revelation most folks won’t touch it with 39 1/2 foot pole. So there’s really no wider academic audience to speak of. Even so, Kerry works with the “larger audience” on secular projects regularly–he’s no stranger to that community.
That said, I think you’ve got Kerry Muhlestein wrong, brother. I see him as humble and brilliant.
Got Medical Medium?
Though in my admittedly grossly limited knowledge, he appeals to Mormons and non Mormons alike.
Him communing with Spirit and Twelve Angels and celery juice for good health. And fertility.
I normally distinguish between “pseudo-science” (like astrology) and “pseudo-history” (like Holocaust denial), but they do overlap (e.g. Atlantis). To me, the key thing is whether scholars and scholarly communities are applying appropriate skepticism to their findings and general assumptions. We have recently heard accusations to the effect that the integrity of mainstream medicine has been compromised on the issue of vaccines (not the first time the issue has come up). We have also heard accusations (mostly on YouTube) to the effect that NASA has brainwashed people into believing in the moon landings and/or globe earth. Some claims amount to irresolvable religious beliefs (e.g. NDEs, reincarnation, prayer research), others tend to be phrased in overly vague or general ways (alternative medicine, UFOs). Almost any subject can be studied with rigor–see Jeff Meldrum on Bigfoot, for example.