Is Mormonism so bad?

[Lem]

There were so many threads on this topic between 2015 and 2019 or so that I think there is a certain negative reaction to it being brought up when it's been juiced, rinded, dried, and ground before.

Here are a couple. I think the second link speaks more to Carrier's misuse of the evidence while the first thread focuses on Carrier's use of that data in presenting and defending his views.

http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48999

A good thread on balancing skepticism. Symmacus offers a good summary:

The problem for me is that the conclusion is so obviously dependent on the premise. The discussion on Carrier seems by now to have a predictable life-cycle on this board, which is fine, but in that life-cycle it usually comes out that Carrier's logically-derived conclusions all depend on the inputs: "garbage in, garbage out." I am open to the possibility that Bayesian analysis is a sound method for determining historical probabilities, but it seems to me that when I look at Carrier's inputs as they are presented here, they are all garbage, and anyone who has any grasp of the scholarship, languages, cultures, and histories of the period can see that. It gets tiring pointing it out over and over, just as I am sure it is tiring for Analytics to argue the soundness and validity of Bayesian analysis. I think both sides are essentially correct, but the problem is with Carrier: how he weighs his evidence before performing any Bayesian analysis is determined by the conclusion he wants to get. He mischaracterizes, minimizes, and maximizes. And the only metric you use when you want to mischaracterize, minimize, or maximize some bit of data is what you want it to prove in the end. THAT is how Carrier is like Peterson. It is not money that is the problem.

Bolding added.

Here's one where we discussed the evidence in some detail:

http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48048

A few posts for those not inclined to follow the link:

Thanks for sharing this. I have to say, I wasn't particularly impressed with Carrier's use of evidence. A few examples from his initial argument are below.

Early on in his first 20 minutes he makes use of Ehrman's argument from How Jesus Became God to show there were cultural devices and types in the occupied Palestine Jewish communities that were applied to Jesus. Ehrman makes the case these were applied to him after his death while Carrier claims there is evidence in the epistles that support viewing this as the source of the Jesus myth in total such that no actual Jesus existed. His references (at around 33:45) include arguing Paul describes Jesus was an angel (described as an archetype in his presentation) as stated by Paul in Galatian 4:14. But what it actually says is, Galatians 4:14 - and even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself. That seems like a forced reading of the verse to see it as saying Paul thought of Jesus as an angel rather than as providing an escalating comparison for how they received Paul.

Carrier notes that Paul contrasts Jesus with Adam who was created by God rather than born, failing to acknowledge that the text is making a literary comparison between the two (For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!). Instead, Carrier claims this shows that as Adam was "manufactured" by God, so was Jesus. That also seems to be a forced interpretation of what is actually being said by Paul.

Around minute 38 he behaves as if he is ignorant of the diversity of Christianity's that were in competition in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries CE, which with the rise of teaching such as in Gnosticism are the cause for the sources of this time warning against those who would teach against Jesus being a living person.

He notes that Paul in Galatians tells us that he did receive of a gospel from man, but from Jesus through revelation which is not in dispute, but also assumes the point that when Paul tells people after Jesus' death that the only way they can receive the gospel is by revelation that this somehow applies to those who might have been around when Jesus was alive. James Jesus' brother or Peter who are known to Paul aren't included and it's unclear why Carrier would choose to apply this logic to everyone given the context of the epistles are to evangelized gentiles who would not have been able to know Jesus in the flesh.

He uses the claims of Paul that both Paul and the churches he establishes have received revelations as being evidence against the authenticity of a historical person we know as Jesus of Nazareth. But that seems to be unrelated like the above: it doesn't say anything about the time period or people who would be witnesses of a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

His argument around minute 42 that the description in Romans of baptism making all brothers and sisters to Christ the firstborn, thus explaining the apparent reference to James as Jesus' brother as referring to his baptism is one that Price made. But that breaks with some general rules of textual criticism. Common use of language implies that if Paul makes use of this phrase to refer to something other than kinship, we ought to see it in his writing as evidence of his authorship. Carrier doesn't do much to make this case by showing this is a device of Paul's, which makes sense because it isn't a device of Paul's. It's how he distinguishes James the brother of the Lord from other people.

The follow up point that the idea Jesus was born of David or of a woman (Romans 1:3 - regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David; Galatians 4:4 - But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law) he claims Paul is speaking in allegory in Galatians 4. But fails to provide a relevant verse though he may mean v. 24 where Paul is specifically referring to his comparision to the wives of Abraham and children of a bond v. free woman. If so, that's problematic.

He also refers to Paul's use of "ginomai" as significant to show that Paul did not view Jesus as being born because he does not use "gennoa". But he doesn't take on the responsibility of explaining this well, since it is consistent of Paul's description of God having sent Jesus for a purpose. The problem Carrier sees here isn't clearly a problem, in my opinion. http://biblehub.com/greek/1096.htm

I guess I still don't see what the point of the mythicicst argument really is given that we aren't limited to either "No Jesus" or "Resurrected Jesus the Christ, the Son of God". I see no reason to overlook his rather Mormon mopologetic-like use of scripture and history to no longer view the historical Jesus as a person who lived at one time, served as the catalyst for an explosion of beliefs and stories that have undergone centuries of countless cycles of expansion and synthesis, and whose actual biography would probably be almost completely new to all of us if we were able to have access to it.

So, that leaves me with this question: If the historical view allows for the mythologizing of a historical Jesus from a lost biography into his deified, ahistorical mythology why is there a need to completely remove Jesus from history? Especially in the way Carrier does above playing with facts which really puts me off?

ETA: I come at this with considerations that are somewhat extreme as well, though. I don't completely discount the views of Robert Eisenman who argues that the Roman Catholic church did much to write out Jesus' family from the narratives but that they can be found still; that Paul may have intentionally corrupted Christian teachings with some allegiance to Rome given his citizenship that defanged the teachings of this one branch of many rebellious Jewish sects into something more compatible with Roman rule; and that James was the theological heir to Jesus rather than Peter or Paul making the entire idea of priesthood authority as claimed by Mormonism central to what Mormon's call the apostasy. But he's a sloppy writer and loose in his thinking as well so he should be viewed with a lot of skepticism. I mostly retain some of his views among my own because they are hard to shake as speaking directly against Mormon views of the early and still authentically led Church of Christ before the apostasy.

Thanks for hunting those down, honor. In addition to adding to the topic, it's a solid reminder that we really need some sort of archiving so we don't lose these past discussions. I remember when I first started posting on the old board, there were many, many times that I would read multiple background threads before entering the discussion. I learned so much! It's an incomparable resource.

[dastardly stem]

There were so many threads on this topic between 2015 and 2019 or so that I think there is a certain negative reaction to it being brought up when it's been juiced, rinded, dried, and ground before.

Here are a couple. I think the second link speaks more to Carrier's misuse of the evidence while the first thread focuses on Carrier's use of that data in presenting and defending his views.

http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48999

A good thread on balancing skepticism. Symmacus offers a good summary:

The problem for me is that the conclusion is so obviously dependent on the premise. The discussion on Carrier seems by now to have a predictable life-cycle on this board, which is fine, but in that life-cycle it usually comes out that Carrier's logically-derived conclusions all depend on the inputs: "garbage in, garbage out." I am open to the possibility that Bayesian analysis is a sound method for determining historical probabilities, but it seems to me that when I look at Carrier's inputs as they are presented here, they are all garbage, and anyone who has any grasp of the scholarship, languages, cultures, and histories of the period can see that. It gets tiring pointing it out over and over, just as I am sure it is tiring for Analytics to argue the soundness and validity of Bayesian analysis. I think both sides are essentially correct, but the problem is with Carrier: how he weighs his evidence before performing any Bayesian analysis is determined by the conclusion he wants to get. He mischaracterizes, minimizes, and maximizes. And the only metric you use when you want to mischaracterize, minimize, or maximize some bit of data is what you want it to prove in the end. THAT is how Carrier is like Peterson. It is not money that is the problem.

Bolding added.

Here's one where we discussed the evidence in some detail:

http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48048

A few posts for those not inclined to follow the link:

Thanks for sharing this. I have to say, I wasn't particularly impressed with Carrier's use of evidence. A few examples from his initial argument are below.

Early on in his first 20 minutes he makes use of Ehrman's argument from How Jesus Became God to show there were cultural devices and types in the occupied Palestine Jewish communities that were applied to Jesus. Ehrman makes the case these were applied to him after his death while Carrier claims there is evidence in the epistles that support viewing this as the source of the Jesus myth in total such that no actual Jesus existed. His references (at around 33:45) include arguing Paul describes Jesus was an angel (described as an archetype in his presentation) as stated by Paul in Galatian 4:14. But what it actually says is, Galatians 4:14 - and even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself. That seems like a forced reading of the verse to see it as saying Paul thought of Jesus as an angel rather than as providing an escalating comparison for how they received Paul.

Carrier notes that Paul contrasts Jesus with Adam who was created by God rather than born, failing to acknowledge that the text is making a literary comparison between the two (For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!). Instead, Carrier claims this shows that as Adam was "manufactured" by God, so was Jesus. That also seems to be a forced interpretation of what is actually being said by Paul.

Around minute 38 he behaves as if he is ignorant of the diversity of Christianity's that were in competition in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries CE, which with the rise of teaching such as in Gnosticism are the cause for the sources of this time warning against those who would teach against Jesus being a living person.

He notes that Paul in Galatians tells us that he did receive of a gospel from man, but from Jesus through revelation which is not in dispute, but also assumes the point that when Paul tells people after Jesus' death that the only way they can receive the gospel is by revelation that this somehow applies to those who might have been around when Jesus was alive. James Jesus' brother or Peter who are known to Paul aren't included and it's unclear why Carrier would choose to apply this logic to everyone given the context of the epistles are to evangelized gentiles who would not have been able to know Jesus in the flesh.

He uses the claims of Paul that both Paul and the churches he establishes have received revelations as being evidence against the authenticity of a historical person we know as Jesus of Nazareth. But that seems to be unrelated like the above: it doesn't say anything about the time period or people who would be witnesses of a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

His argument around minute 42 that the description in Romans of baptism making all brothers and sisters to Christ the firstborn, thus explaining the apparent reference to James as Jesus' brother as referring to his baptism is one that Price made. But that breaks with some general rules of textual criticism. Common use of language implies that if Paul makes use of this phrase to refer to something other than kinship, we ought to see it in his writing as evidence of his authorship. Carrier doesn't do much to make this case by showing this is a device of Paul's, which makes sense because it isn't a device of Paul's. It's how he distinguishes James the brother of the Lord from other people.

The follow up point that the idea Jesus was born of David or of a woman (Romans 1:3 - regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David; Galatians 4:4 - But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law) he claims Paul is speaking in allegory in Galatians 4. But fails to provide a relevant verse though he may mean v. 24 where Paul is specifically referring to his comparision to the wives of Abraham and children of a bond v. free woman. If so, that's problematic.

He also refers to Paul's use of "ginomai" as significant to show that Paul did not view Jesus as being born because he does not use "gennoa". But he doesn't take on the responsibility of explaining this well, since it is consistent of Paul's description of God having sent Jesus for a purpose. The problem Carrier sees here isn't clearly a problem, in my opinion. http://biblehub.com/greek/1096.htm

I guess I still don't see what the point of the mythicicst argument really is given that we aren't limited to either "No Jesus" or "Resurrected Jesus the Christ, the Son of God". I see no reason to overlook his rather Mormon mopologetic-like use of scripture and history to no longer view the historical Jesus as a person who lived at one time, served as the catalyst for an explosion of beliefs and stories that have undergone centuries of countless cycles of expansion and synthesis, and whose actual biography would probably be almost completely new to all of us if we were able to have access to it.

So, that leaves me with this question: If the historical view allows for the mythologizing of a historical Jesus from a lost biography into his deified, ahistorical mythology why is there a need to completely remove Jesus from history? Especially in the way Carrier does above playing with facts which really puts me off?

ETA: I come at this with considerations that are somewhat extreme as well, though. I don't completely discount the views of Robert Eisenman who argues that the Roman Catholic church did much to write out Jesus' family from the narratives but that they can be found still; that Paul may have intentionally corrupted Christian teachings with some allegiance to Rome given his citizenship that defanged the teachings of this one branch of many rebellious Jewish sects into something more compatible with Roman rule; and that James was the theological heir to Jesus rather than Peter or Paul making the entire idea of priesthood authority as claimed by Mormonism central to what Mormon's call the apostasy. But he's a sloppy writer and loose in his thinking as well so he should be viewed with a lot of skepticism. I mostly retain some of his views among my own because they are hard to shake as speaking directly against Mormon views of the early and still authentically led Church of Christ before the apostasy.

Thanks, honor. I'm a bit confused by your linked thread. Its a thread discussing a public debate between Carrier and William lane Craig about the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. At the start of his comments Carrier says he's granting Jesus lived for the sake of the debate. And while debates can give some snippets of ideas and briefs on scholarship it'd be unfair to treat a public debate as a means to evaluate his scholarship. He could be a terrible debater and a fine shcolar or the other way around.

Additionally Symachus' comments suggest he hasnt seriously considered his work, but is summarizing an initial level impression.

As I said I'm not feeling interested in defending him, per se. I'm not seeing a very deep or serious effort in engaging. All the best.

[mentalgymnast]

So to get this straight, Paul’s work and testimony was the result of multiple delusionary experiences that he had?

Regards,
MG

Why is a dream a delusion? Do all other religious gurus and characters suffer from delusion because they reveal a God and religion different from what you expect? Why is Paul any different?

Because his experience was with the Christ. A living, breathing person who made a claim to being God’s son. And he comes back to this world multiple times to reveal himself to a person who didn’t even believe in him and was actually persecuting Christians.

Unique, yes?

I think Paul is one to take seriously. He was educated and smart. Again, you seem to be saying that he was delusional. Do you really believe that? If so, why?

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

...I'm not seeing a very deep or serious effort in engaging. All the best.

Except now the troll is trolling, so... all the best with that, also.

[mentalgymnast]

...I'm not seeing a very deep or serious effort in engaging. All the best.

Except now the troll is trolling, so... all the best with that, also.

You know, you have a certain number of ‘regulars’ that are not going to call you out on your somewhat repetitive and tiring ad hominem.The thing is, for those who are lurking and watch your antics time after time, I’d think you would be embarrassed to put yourself into a position where you are caught in the act of lying.

But that doesn’t seem to bother you.

by the way, I have noticed, at times a failure in engaging what I’m actually saying. Rather, straw men are set up to try and take down any reasonable arguments that are being made.

I’m still concerned that stem seems to be treating the Apostle Paul in a cavalier fashion. He doesn’t take him seriously at all, even though he is unique among others who claimed to see/receive visions.

We can’t have Paul being a reliable witness now, can we?

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

...a failure in engaging what I’m actually saying....

Let it be said, I totally see where your world view cannot allow Paul’s experiences to be anything other than some kind of delusion.....

Trolling.

Methinks you would have been one of those that didn’t experience what he did at the time he received the visitation from Christ....

Trolling.

[honorentheos]

There were so many threads on this topic between 2015 and 2019 or so that I think there is a certain negative reaction to it being brought up when it's been juiced, rinded, dried, and ground before.

Thanks for hunting those down, honor. In addition to adding to the topic, it's a solid reminder that we really need some sort of archiving so we don't lose these past discussions. I remember when I first started posting on the old board, there were many, many times that I would read multiple background threads before entering the discussion. I learned so much! It's an incomparable resource.

I was lucky in remembering roughly when some of these discussions occurred and didn't have to dig too hard to unearth these two. While stem doesn't seem impressed, which is fine, I think it'd be unlikely there are better treatments. I doubt stem actually read the threads but at least for a few there are links.

[mentalgymnast]

...a failure in engaging what I’m actually saying....

Let it be said, I totally see where your world view cannot allow Paul’s experiences to be anything other than some kind of delusion.....

Trolling.

Methinks you would have been one of those that didn’t experience what he did at the time he received the visitation from Christ....

Trolling.

From Wikipedia:

Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets people on the Internet. This is typically done by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion.

This is not what I’m doing. I do cut against the existing grain which is prevalent. If this was a board in which those who are participating are active, believing members of the church I would not be considered a troll at all. Your viewfinder is set according to certain settings which, when looked through, see me as a troll.

If I’m grating on your sensibilities, I would be happy to bow out at this point. Is that your preference?

Cancel culture is alive and well, huh?

by the way, if stem can’t stand the heat of the oven, why not let him be the one to make a formal complaint? I don’t see him doing so. He turns the heat on me at times. Same with others. That’s OK. I don’t mind. My guess is that he is not viewing this conversation as a trolling exercise on my part.

I could be wrong. I’ll leave that up to him to weigh in on. I am asking him some rather pointed questions which I believe deserve a response. I think his responses so far have been rather weak.

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

Lol. Pick your fights elsewhere, troll.

When MG posits that if he is right, then what he believes to be true is true, one shouldn't feel obligated to post a reply. That's a mad man ranting on the street corner, convinced of his own rightness because he lacks the capacity to get outside of the preference he holds for his own opinions.

But then he has also become satellite to some book or other recently that has spun him off into claims those who do not agree with his opinion are myopic and have their viewfinder focused poorly.

I don't know how many times over numerous threads a board member has pointed out to MG he has his ladder placed on the branch he is sawing, that his reasoning is circular, or that he is locked in a Mormon-based worldview he asserts as universal. There aren't many more ways to express it that haven't been tried. So, I guess that's about as far as the conversation will ever make it.

You're so right.
I never feel obligated to reply to the troll known as 'mentalgymnast'. My reply was aimed towards the thread in general and the lurkers and other respondents to the thread as it's an interesting point about an ongoing attribute of Mormonism - that of wanting to hold two mutually exclusive positions simultaneously.

[huckelberry]

Stem, you mention above that you think it is possible people here have been a bit shallow in their engagement with Carrier. If there are deeper dimensions of Carriers views you are certainly welcome to present such and push the discussion into more satisfactory depths. In fact I and probably others thought they were inviting you to do exactly that.

How about the many dying rising gods in world cultures. Do you think that common and significant human theme is a deep end of possible discussion? I think the theme recreates over and over again because it is an important part of human experience. (sacrifice and rebirth)

Perhaps there is something else deep in Carrier's studies?