John (#23) I phrased that wrong. I meant what you said, i.e., miracles within the hearts of the faithful are the plan, not external physical divine interventions.

The folklore concerning the transfiguration of Brigham Young that has arisen in the Utah period does not fit the historical record of 1844. Mormons in Nauvoo did not immediately begin to see Brigham as holding Joseph’s mantle. Instead they accepted what he said at the time, that there could be no successor and that the Twelve together would watch the flock for the time being. The transfiguration story does fit the later situation in Utah where Brigham was accepted as Joseph’s successor. And this is when accounts actually enter the historical record.

True enough, Bruce. Thanks for keeping me honest.

I fully realize people in the Church explain away counter evidence. I will not argue this. But what I would really like for people outside the Church to be able to admit is that they do too and in equal numbers.

You bring up a valid point, although I’d suggest that the issue is complicated by competing definitions of evidence. For example, a believer may choose to pay their tithing, and then desperately pray for money to pay the electric bill before they lose their electricity. If something happens to either stall the electric company or provide the necessary cash in time, the believer sees this as evidence that their deity answers their prayers. The non-believer, on the other hand, sees this as a possible interpretation of the events, but not evidentiary of divine existence, let alone intervention. Either person could be correct in their interpretation of the events. After all, even if the believer’s deity does answer prayers, that deity may not have been the motivator or cause of whatever event resolved the crisis, and on the other hand, the resolution could have been purely a matter of chance.

At some point, the non-believer can encounter a circumstance they can’t “explain it away.” At that point, the non-believer could begin to believe, or they could simply shrug their shoulders, admitting they don’t know the answer. In my own “journey of non-belief,” I think I shrug my shoulders far more than I explain things away. Others’ mileage may vary, of course.

I’m not longer convinced overcoming confirmation bias is necessarily a good thing… or even possible. I suspect that the fall, evolution, and God (not necessarily in that order) gave us confirmation bias for a wise purpose.

Well, we process things in terms of how they relate to what we have already concluded. We see a species of tree that we’ve never encountered, and because of our familiarity with a variety of other trees, we decide this new plant is a tree. In fact, it seems to me that we really can’t learn anything without being able to make it connect to our existing understanding. That being the case, it seems to me that we’re all quite naturally predisposed to confirmation bias. The challenge comes when we find the new plant really isn’t a tree, and we have to redefine a part of our world!

Nick, let’s write offline sometime. I know this may come as a shock, but I really do appreciate your position. I would like to be friends with you even if we are “fighting friends” so to speak. But it doesn’t have to be personal if we like each other. If you were in Utah, I’d invite you over to my house for lunch or something.

>>> It didn’t happen, but they didn’t scrap their faith—they invented “reasons” why it was “delayed.”

Actually, this is only partially true. In the short run, they did make up excuses to hold on to their faith. But eventually they all abandonded it due to the overwhelming evidence against them.

I fully realize people in the Church explain away counter evidence. I will not argue this. But what I would really like for people outside the Church to be able to admit is that they do too and in equal numbers.

It shocks me that I can see it inside the Church and outside the Church but those outside can only see it inside the Church. We are all victims of confirmation bias and being able to admit that is like admitting your an alcoholic at an AA meeting: it’s the first step to a long recovery.

On the other hand, and this may shock you too, but I’m not longer convinced overcoming confirmation bias is necessarily a good thing… or even possible. I suspect that the fall, evolution, and God (not necessarily in that order) gave us confirmation bias for a wise purpose.

Yes, the italics were only to stress the word, not to suggest that every LDS member used the “testing faith” argument, and potentially “added” your suggested arguments.

If I misinterpreted your language/answer, I deeply apologize. But it was done in good faith and I do think it was a pertinent question and completely appropriate for this form. What could be more appropriate then to challenge old stereotypes? I would expect no less of you if things were reversed. (And I’d applaud you for doing so.)

Reading back over what you said in #2, even now that I have your explanation of what you meant in #32, I’m still not clear where I missed what you said to the point to justify the accusation of intentionally trying to misunderstand you. It really does seem like you are making a broad stereotype and applying it generally.

But I am happy to take #32 as your definitive answer that I somehow misunderstand “At least that’s how it works for everything else” as being a stereotype. I fully recognize how difficult it is to communicate on the internet via typing. I can’t hear your tone of voice and it’s easy to lose the context of a statement. I’m sure something like that interfered with our communication.

It seems likely that I read in the wrong tone of voice on your “additional” because you put it in italics. But that’s why I ask for clarification.

Here we go, once more with feeling. There are several responses from LDS members, who attempt to reconcile DNA findings with the historical claims of The Book of Mormon. These several responses, none of which are ubiquitous, unanimous, or in any way monolithic, happen to include, but are in no way limited to the following:

(1) claiming that the modern Hebrew DNA used wouldn’t be expected to match ancient Hebrew DNA (so the test was no [sic] valid), or
(2) claiming that the group was limited in size and genetical overwhelmed (so the test was not valid), or
(3) claiming that deity intentionally performed a miracle to alter the DNA of Lamanite and Nephite descendants, so that later believers would be forced to accept The Book of Mormon on faith, rather than on scientific evidence.

Happy now, Bruce????

A video account of Lazarus may not be helpful if he was in a deep coma, but it would be helpful if it caught individuals in the act of perpetrating a fraud. If on camera, he did appear to be lifeless, the evidence would be incomplete without a cardiac monitor or an EEG to confirm heart/brain death. If it was not a fraud and his recovery from a near death condition occurred, it would still be an incredible coincidence that he got better exactly at the time he was beckoned forth.

The video of Jesus walking on the water would be impressive, but would need to examine the feet closely. If you saw the movie ‘Ever After’ the DaVinci character invented wooden shoes that enabled him to walk on water. Carpentry skills could be helpful.

The following quote is from a conference talk by Howard W. Hunter:

“In the contemplation of miracles “we must of necessity recognize the operation of a power transcending our present human understanding,” wrote Dr. James E. Talmage, who, as both a scientist and an Apostle of the Lord, had uniquely strong qualifications for examining such phenomena. (See Jesus the Christ, 3d ed., Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1916, p. 149.) Science and the unaided human mind, he said, have not advanced far enough to analyze and explain these wonders. But, he cautioned, to deny the reality of miracles on the ground that the results and manifestations must be fictitious simply because we cannot comprehend the means by which they have happened is arrogant on the face of it. (Ibid.) Indeed, those who have been the beneficiaries of such miracles are the most compelling witnesses of all. It is hard to argue with results.” Howard W. Hunter, “The God That Doest Wonders,” Ensign, May 1989, 15

Miracles in my life could be chalked up as good odds in many or most cases, but I keep my mind open to the possibility of a transcendent power being involved. I really like John Hamer’s post in number 9. As a boy, I wanted to have a Joseph Smith type experience, but felt that the experiences I did have with his testimonies overcame the deck-stacking, as subjective as that may be. I had one investigator once who complained that our theology stacked the deck against all those who lived beyond the age of accountability because those who die before that age are promised a Celestial Glory.

For the walking on water Paulus writes that because of the storm and it being night it caused the disciples not to realize that they had not travel much off shore. Jesus really walked in ankle deep water and Peter didn’t realize that they were in such shallow water, he panicked and Jesus had to lift him up so that he could get his composure.

The raising of the dead is much more complicated but he comes from a medical point of view for the time. What is interesting is Paulus also makes an argument for the rising of Jesus from the dead as being a explainable natural occurrence. There actually is accounts from antiquity of people surviving the crucifixion though the Romans thought they were dead.

What I find interesting about these types ‘miracles’ and others, is did contemporaries view/accept them in the same context as we now do some hundreds or even thousands of years later, after they have been embellished and polished? For example, and I can’t find the source right now – one of the Journals: MHA, BYU Studies maybe Dialogue – someone had done a study of the 1848 cricket plague and resulting miracle. I believe that the article mentions that contemporary records did not view the seagulls as a Divine miracle, but that it evolved over a period of years and became the miracle that we now have.

You put “additional” in italics. Does that mean you are comfortable with the broad brush stereotype/depiction of LDS people believing God would plant counter evidence to try their faith as a way of ignoring evidence? Does this also mean you are equally comfortable when people do similar broad brushes/stereotypes of agnostics or ex-Mormons? (For example, assuming ex-Mormon are generally ex-Mormons due to sin.)

This is the RLDS claim.

“Finally we have style 3: God performs no miracles, other than those which are in accord with the divine/natural laws of the universe. In this case, all reports of miracles and tricks, even by prophets, are in the minds of the beholders and have no place in reality or in God’s actual plan.”

For some of us, “minds of the beholders” may be an integral part of God’s actual plan. Just a possibility, although it’s not traditional.

Nick,

The same can be said of the Utah seagulls eating the crickets of 1848. Historians have shown that if it happened, no one at the time was writing about it in their journals, so it really wasn’t as remarkable as it’s made out to be. The seagull monument still stands on Temple Square, though.

I wonder what tour guides say about it, now that even BYU historians have debunked the story?

Brigham had a reputation as “an excellent mimic,” and he demanded that Emma Smith allow him to borrow Joseph’s horse on the occasion. With perhaps a little more evidence, one could get the idea that Brigham intentionally made himself appear as “Joseph-like” as possible that day.

I don’t know that I would consider Brigham’s speech an “end to the succession crisis” in itself. Substantial numbers of early Mormons followed other paths, most notably those who accepted the claims of James J. Strang. (Of course, I still love Heber C. Kimball’s alleged statement, that Strangism wasn’t “worth the skin of a fart!”)

As an open vision, I’d agree.

But as people hearing or feeling like BY was Joseph Smith, there are several contempary accounts that Wagner (no friend of the LDS Church) cites in a paper I read of his meant to debunk the whole incident. That’s the weird part; Wagner’s article mean to convince me that no miracle occured convinced me that a miracle had occured due to the early recollections cited. (I had lost faith in the incident prior to reading his article.) I now believe there is ample evidence that a miracle did occurred but that it got better with memory and later retellings. Which is what we’d expect, right?

Granted this is not the type of miracle Joe’s post was about. It apparently wouldn’t show up on video camera other than some people getting excited that BY seems like Joseph and falls into John Hamers 3 category that it’s not a miracle that violated any laws of physics but was spiritual in nature. But the physical end result was overwhelming.

But it still happened basically as people remember it minus the open vision: no one knew who to follow and the LDS church was about to be pulled apart at the seams. Then BY spoke and everyone felt that he seemed like Joseph and followed him in huge numbers, ending a succession crisis that could have ended the LDS church all together.

Nick, you have a point, but let me explain myself a bit further, if that’s okay.

Let me point you to an excellent post made by a very intelligent poster here on Mormon Matters that already explained the difference between not having evidence so you have to believe on faith and planting counter evidence as a test of faith.

In post #2 you originally used an example of God planting counter evidence and held that up as if it was normal for believers to believe. I.e. “At least that’s how it works for everything else.”

But in #15 you used an example of lack of evidence and belief on faith with DNA. But the usual explanation there is that the modern Hebrew DNA used wouldn’t be expected to match ancient Hebrew DNA (so the test was no valid), or that the group was limited in size and genetical overwhelmed (so the test was not valid). Neither of these are the same as the example you used in #2 as they are not God specifically planting counter evidence. They are just a lack of evidence.

One thing I’m sure about, Nick, is that you are very thoughtful and try to be fair. Would you feel comfortable with someone making an equivalent broad brush stroke of all agnostics or ex-Mormons and holding up the worst examples as normal for the whole?

The author of the book I am reading gives some common answers and then his comment to those answers. I will give an extract. First the problem: We know Jesus was subject to gravity and the properties of water since he was baptized (completely immersed) in water. So maybe Jesus was fully human at the beginning of his ministry but then as time went on he became ethereal until he was finally able to float up to heaven. The one big problem with this is Jesus is no longer human at his suffering and death, and this has been a heresy pretty much from the end of the first century. The other idea is Jesus could have suspended gravity. But most scholars have a problem with this since he was human and would follow the laws of gravity and there is also the Peter problem. Peter is not divine and yet he also walks on water. As the author of the book writes “until I see you zipping through the air” I don’t believe this way (of suspending gravity) is possible.

#5:
It is possible that we would see loaves and fish appearing from nowhere…

It’s also possible…make that likely…that such images would be challenged by unbelievers as “camera tricks” and special effects.

You are right, the two posts are similar. Though I have to admit that I came about this question or idea from a completely different source. I have been studying the New Testament from people who are not Mormon and who have a completely different take than we do. In one of the books I have been reading this question is asked. Because of this I wanted to see what Mormon’s think of this issue, how do we deal with these miracles from a historical point of view. I think the two issues are different enough because this is a much larger issue for all Christianity and the records to study this issue is completely different than Joseph Smith’s accounts.

I know Talmage came from a scientist perspective, though he depended on very conservative and dated New Testament writers and scholars. When I read Messiah series almost thirty years ago I believe McConkie wrote from the stand point the he would have taped the miracles. I really am curious what the modern Mormon thinks of this. Do we believe as Talmage and McConkie or have do we see with different eyes? I am curious if Mormons have gone out side the faith to study these issues or is there someone with in our faith that has tackled these issues from a scholarly or historical perspective?

I think Nick and Ann have brought up one perspective and I appreciate what they are saying. I think it is a valid perspective but unfortunately it cannot be tested or really even debated. I am not suggesting that either of you believe this perspective, I am just saying it is a valid perspective for one who has it.