If truth can't be taken literally, then nothing can.

Historicity matters. Faith follows truth. If you lose historicity, you lose the claim to truth. Which undermines faith.

If the Book of Mormon extraordinary physical claims are not true, then there were no plates, no Moroni visit, etc., no priesthood.... It's pivotal to any of the foundational claims of Mormonism.

I feel the reason the NT has been held so sacred for two millennia is not because it's a great story, but because throughout the ages, it was believed that Jesus did rise again, in spite of various problems in the text.

This was one of my favorite discussions on Jacob's channel. I hope more guests like Travis are invited on. Before we know it this channel will be better than the Faith Matters Podcast with all the nuance.

"Today I invited a random guy who found me on Twitter." 💀

Orthodoxy vs Orthopraxy is a very good way to put it. I think through the relationships we forge with God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost lead us to know them intimately. Through our relationships we get to know them more. Beliefs and propositions fall into place over time based on experience.

Jacob, a statistician reviewed Bauckhams work on the new testament names. It's an interesting paper and a good look at why I don't take apologetics like this very seriously. Is Name Popularity a Good Test of Historicity? A Statistical Evaluation of Richard Bauckham’s Onomastic Argument Authors: Kamil Gregor and Brian Blais

Historicity matters, it helps us to learn step by step

Travis was an excellent guest. The difficulty of harmonizing the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection (see Dan Barker's Resurrection Challenge) strongly suggests at least some infection of oral storytelling into the "historical" accounts, does it not? As Travis has so astutely observed, when you build your faith around statements of belief that can be validated via evidence, you also risk having them falsified by the evidence. Hence, Hebrews 11:1. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

anything you make into a statement of fact becomes a proposition, so there's no getting away from propositional thinking, it's essential to truth

When historicity is on your side, it is REALLY important. When historicity is not on your side, it seems to no longer be an issue.

I often feel I’m not intelligent enough to watch this stuff, and too stupid to even discuss these topics with others. I know the gospel is for everyone, but often feel that the LDS academic intellectuals feel salvation is only for them based on how much nuance they can find in being obedient to simple commandments. I love it though, thanks as always, Jacob.

45:09 We root our faith not in an abstract event, but in the person of Jesus Christ, who was endowed with the power to be the source of living waters and the bread of life. We can’t covenant with an event. But to Jacob’s point, the literality of the resurrection is a “table stakes” level proposition to claim to be a Christian. But the temple makes it clear that Christ will still be willing to make covenants with those who didn’t recognize this in mortality. It’s as if you’re both gazing at the same truth from different vantage points. Framing the discussion this way definitely allowed me to gain insights from each of your perspectives! I enjoyed the “proving contraries” type discussion.

This reminds of Jared Halversons discussion on proving contraries… Yes, propositions and Yes ordinances are the pinnacle of faith and covenants are supreme. (Travis… voice from the past my sister Nikki says Hi 🙌🏼)

4:10 it’s the convergence of testimonies that matters. My “personal” version of Jesus becomes more useful in building His kingdom when we have a shared version and my witness converges with others’ witnesses

I love you Jacob and I believe that we would be friends if we were in the same area, but man it's a labor to listen to you in a discussion sometimes.

To say that our propositions are insufficient, that makes sense, our propositions need to lead somewhere, or else how would having those propositions add value to our lives and our place in the world? As for how they lead to ordinances, I would say that ordinances are an expression what we believe, like practicing baptism because I believe that being saved involves being crucified with Christ in the old man and raising up to a New Life as a New Creation, and partaking of the Lord's Supper in remembrance of His sacrifice for my life, remembering that it was my sins that put Him on the cross, and if everyone else was righteous and I was the only sinner, Jesus would have died just for me (what I also get from the parable of the 1 lost sheep) I don't believe that the ordinances save, but rather that by partaking of the ordinances with the understanding of what they stand for, I am exercising the faith that saves

Fantastic discussion.

If it's not historical, then it's fictional-and it should be presented as such.

46:40 and this really is the reason the historicity “doesn’t matter”-the fact doesn’t move people to discipleship any more reliably that the fact smoking hurts is moves people to quit

What apologetic sources for the historicity of the gospels would you recommend? Dan McClellan is pretty convincing 😂 (either way I’m good)

I thought Peterson confessed his belief 2 years ago. He said the narrative world touched the real world in reference to Jesus' resurrection and then he said with teats in his eyes I believe that and I'm amazed at my belief.

They touched on this a bit in the beginning. I think historicity does matter, because without the recognition that the scriptures are historical documents, you lose contextual information that is critical to understanding the theology. The majority of the protestant arguments against us about Sola Scriptura are based on proof texts taken out of their historical context. You could say the same about challenges to other points of our theology like theosis, the Father and the Son being distinct beings, or the great apostasy. There are scriptures that can be used as proof texts against those points, but if you take them in their proper historical contexts, they actually end up either supporting our truth claims, or talking about a completely different point than the one the critic was trying to make. That's not to say that everything we teach needs to be in the Bible, because it doesn't, but understanding how God dealt with his people in ancient times properly, we are able to also understand Gods dealings with us properly as well.

Debate Jay Dyer on the Trinity

I personally like what the birds had to say…

So basically Joseph Smith was capable of writing the Book of Mormon.

I love the Bible, because you cannot understand the Savior's personality without it. I found at age 82, that we must understand Christ, (or should) by reading and then also see how all of it plays out with our own interaction with Him, knowing that we now "look through the glass darkly." The more we study all truth and compare it with the scriptures, the more we find the influence of him everywhere. it increase our desire to be Like Him.. You must know for yourself. You cannot explain it and others might scoff. I watch Shepherds chapel a lot because he has a knowledge of history which uses to verify with that, plus he knows the several languages of the original text. I was amazed at what he has gleaned from the Bible that has gotten him in trouble with the general beliefs of the Christian community, such as premortal existence, explaining why fossils because the earth was fashioned from another age of the earth, children do not need baptism, no "Rapture" because the anti-Christ comes first to fool us. He is not correct in some things but he leads people to study it our for himself. As to Jordan Peterson I find that he gets closer to the full gospel of Christ every day, because he has accepted truth from the Spirit of Christ.

Doubting Thomas? Did he doubt more than the others? They were all "doubters" and Thomas gets the rap!

Why does the bible have archaeological evidence that every anthropologist says supports at least some of it's history, but not one archaeologist can find even 1 artifact that specifically supports any of the BOM history?

Interesting back and forth with regards to proposition and dogma. Is it possible that we need to properly define the word "dogma"? What is a dogma? If I say "If you don't believe that saturday is the Sabbath, you can't be a Seventh Day Adventist" is that a dogma? Or is a dogma more arbitrary than that? The reason why we regard Catholicism, particularly in the middle ages, as being "dogmatic" is not just because they had propositions, but because they enforced their propositions through the government (union of church and state) and if you didn't go along with the church in those days, particularly in the Inquisition period, there were judicial and financial consequences like fines, prison, loss of livelihood, and even death itself...this is what I understand by dogmatism and being dogmatic in a more extreme sense Being dogmatic in a more moderate sense might be "if you don't believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead you don't qualify as a Christian"...that's just a statement of fact, because belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus is a defining characteristic of a Christians, and it's not arbitrary, it's based on an understanding that His death and resurrection did indeed take place, it's not just "because the pope said so", but because Jesus said beforehand that He was going to, and when it DID happen there were eyewitnesses to the fact, and they were willing to put their lives on the line facing persecution for what they saw. That's being propositional, not dogmatic, and I think the gentleman taking the non-propositional view of faith could be conflating two things together that don't fit

If you believe the story of the 6-day creation, if you believe the story of the flood and Noah's ark, if you believe that Moses parted the Red Sea, and you believe that several resurrected beings came down from heaven and visited Joseph Smith, you are a faithful Mormon.

Was Mary the Mother of Jesus in every way a Virgin? If she wasn't would it remove everything about Jesus and who He is?

This is the only historicity that matters… “Looking unto Jesus the AUTHOR and FINISHER of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” -Hebrews 12:2, KJV

When you conflate “Truth” with “fact”, you lose clarity because the rationalist/materialist view of factualness excludes truth that is understood outside of that context.

Rough one this one. A debate might have been better

You’ll never get to covenant without proposition. Without proposition, you are being forced to accept the covenant, which is exactly what the guest is saying he’s against

Ephesians 2 from verse 8 says that we are saved by grace through faith, and Romans 10:17 says that faith comes by hearing, hearing by the Word of God. Those two verses capture all five solas: By grace alone (sola gracia) through faith alone (sola fides) in Christ alone (sola Christus) to the glory of God alone (sola Deo Gloria) as revealed in His Word alone (sola scriptura)....sometimes we get stuck on sola scriptura as if there was only one sola, but actually all five solas together summarize how we are saved, and none of them involve being saved by the ordinances. On the contrary I would say that the reformation countered the idea of being saved by ordinance, or what the RC called "sacraments", whereas the gentleman on the left seems to be reverting to a sacramental understanding of the ordinances

I learned from both you, and felt the spirt testify of Christs literally physical resurrection and also the truth that the primary way to know things is through revelation and the fact that revelation is pure truth

Taking the scriptures as not being literal is always the baby step before you stop taking the scriptures seriously.

Yeah, this is a person who thinks "too much." I would love debating him in Elders quorum.

Do you realize that the BOM is the ONLY book claiming to speak for god for which we do NOT have the ancient source? Joseph said no one could see the gold plates and then said that god told him to hide the plates. FISHY FISHY FISHY

A covenant is a bond, a pledge, a commitment. Sorry but it is a contractual relationship with Christ. A bilateral bond.

So the Christ's visit to the America's was a vision, and no one touched his wounds, they imagined him partaking of the sacrament? If you have faith in the book of mormon you can't not believe in the Ressurection

Travis looks like the LDS version of Keanu Reeves.

If literalism is so crucial I wonder why the Savior taught so often using parable. Obviously the core narrative must stem from reality, but there’s a lot of room for individual components to depart from reality. For example, most members these days seem to believe the great flood of Noah to be either a local event or a parable. None of those possibilities changes the lesson to be learned or has any bearing on the reality of Christ as the Savior. Even Joseph Smith, himself, is said to have considered Song of Solomon not to be inspired scripture. Latter-day Saints really should be a lot better at thinking flexibly and expansively when it comes to scripture. But you know who tried to pigeonhole everything into singular, controlled meanings? That’s right, folks, the Pharisees.

What proof do we have that Jesus actually physically resurrected?

We know from scholars both in and out of the Church that: 1. NONE of the 4 gospels names its author; 2. Mark was written first and was substantially quoted by both Matthew & Luke; 3. Matthew & Luke also quote another source we have not found (typically called "X'); 4. John seems to be substantiated as the author of both the Gospel of John & the Apocalypse (Revelation) by Joseph Smith; 5. Paul is the closest-to-the-life-of-Christ authors whose writings we have (as in the oldest attested documents); * 6. Early Christians knew many things about Jesus that are not in the current NT; 7. Though you blast the "Bart Ehrman train" he excellently points out that MANY of the NT teachings of Jesus are contradictory (fx re marriage/divorce); 8. The Book of Mormon account of Jesus' teachings (both in 3 Nephi and other ways) substantiates many NT teachings of Christ (and does NOT substantiate others); and 9. Many historical details in the 4 gospels (and other NT books) cannot be right, at least as we moderns read into them. One more point: many "Greek-isms" don't work in Aramaic/Hebrew (main example: the whole "born again" discussion in John 3 does not work as to that confusion about possibly needing to reenter a mother's womb. Obviously, whatever is "true" historically in the NT matters most (to me) for James 1:5 echoing through history such that farm-boy Joseph was able to be touched by the Spirit and chose to pray for wisdom.

"How Much Does Historicity Matter?" The cart is before the horse. Testimony would transcend historicity, since historicity would serve to bolster testimony and not the other way around.

Historicity kinda matters. Does it matter if Jesus was a real person? Yes. Does it matter if the earth was created in 7 literal days, and Adam and Eve were literal people cast out of a literal garden? No. What matters are the truths that God created us, we are in a fallen state, and we need His help to redeem us. The particular stories aren’t as important as the truths they are communicating.

Now I think the presenter/host is going to a confusing place. Our orthopraxy is INFORMED by our orthodoxy. Our actions are informed by what we believe, therefore we cannot get away from orthodoxy, because that's how we understand our orthopraxy. it is by the Word, the proposition of what is right, that we know how to do right. How would we do right if we don't KNOW how to do right, and how we know how to do right if we don't propositionally and orthodoxically KNOW what right even IS?

If a proposition undergirds something, you can't take it out, that's like pulling a foundation out of a house. It seems like the gentleman on the right is seeking, or has been taught or led to seek ways to be theologically fuzzy as long as "we all do the same ordinances" so that what we believe in our inner conscience doesn't matter, as long as our outward rituals are unified. Now he might object to be saying that, and I'd be interested to hear how we works that out, but that's what it sounds like from where I'm sitting

Great conversation. The guest perspective seems so much more peaceful and accepting way of approaching the gospel and his fellow men.

The first principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ is faith IN JESUS CHRIST. Faith in an abstract sense is irrelevant. It must be placed in Jesus to be of any effect. We can have hope and trust in something else but that does not provide the same thing that faith in Jesus Christ does. If you don’t believe that Jesus conquered death and sin then you are just placing your trust and hope in a teacher - quite a sandy foundation. I’m sorry, but the gospel is a set of propositions. Separately, while we want to avoid litmus tests of a spurious nature, there are limits to the word Christian. A word that isn’t defined isn’t even a word, and this push by some within the church to accept anything as a valid belief system is very dangerous. Truth actually matters. Otherwise Jesus wouldn’t have spent time teaching doctrine. Lastly, if you take all the propositions out of ordinances they are completely empty. It isn’t ordinances that unite the church - it is truth. It is faith in Jesus Christ. “We all went for a swim in a tiny pool” is not relevant at all. It doesn’t unite people and has no power without the truths and understanding that makes it meaningful.

Rowling is pronounced like bowling.

If there is no resurrection, the new covenant has no power. No power to save or exalt. Without the power, any authority or teaching loses all its purpose

"propositions take away from the power of ordinances", uhmmm, no, actually propositions GIVE ordinances their power, because ordinances would have no meaning without propositions. Man this Latter Day saint guy, what is his actual foundation of faith? What does he actually stand on? He seems to be all over the place and yet nowhere. This is not a good advertisement for LDS

The atonement is more important than the resurrection.

The historicity of the Book of Mormon is questionable but does this take away from its message?

Well, do you know what the Talmud says about Jesus?

Travis seems to be promoting things that are contrary to Church teachings. How is he an EQ teacher?

Jacob's standard evangelical Protestant apologetic fails. Excellent scholarship has already well-established reasonable judgments on the nature of the Gospels, and Jacob's apologetic does nothing to aid the Latter-day Saint project -- which is to preach the Gospel worldwide. The nature and content of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not dependent upon the authorship of the four Gospels. It is not dependent upon some absurd "proof" of the resurrection or witness accounts. It is dependent upon the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which is a notion strongly disrespected by evangelical Protestants. Jacob fails to understand that many Jews outside of Judah wrote and spoke Greek (Josephus, Philo), and the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible was made by Jewish scholars so that Greek speaking Jews could use it. It is the basis for nearly all NT quotations.

Jacob, I find myself thinking back to when the early church history was written down. And how many mistakes were made in simply that record add that record with time, and you sure get a lot of confusion especially when certain details were missed. I think that’s largely what happened with the record of the new testament. That said, I’m not sure that historicity matters to those struggling to have faith. If they can find a way to believe by not worrying about the historicity, then there is value in that. Because people need drop by drop to whatever helps them have faith until their light grows brighter unto the perfect day/

Genetic Fallacy. The historicity doesn’t matter at all if you can abide the precepts and get closer to God

Travis doesn't answer directly. It's frustrating.

Do you know how to respond to a person who says "view of the Hebrews " is the foundation for the Book of Mormon