CS Lewis's Trilemma - Applied to Joseph Smith / The Book of Mormon / "Inspired Fiction"

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nor would I.  

What about "deceived?"

Not deceived because that would imply a sentient supernatural agent that is doing the deceiving.  I think he learned a lot from contemporaries involved in treasure digging, Luman Walters, the Chase family, his Dad and others.  It was part of his milieu, probably no different than me learning about collecting baseball cards when I was a kid.  It was normal, natural, and real to him, all of it.  But I think he also began to realize that he had a talent or knack for it.  I imagine at some point that he questioned whether the treasures and other things he claimed to see in his stone were in actually there in reality. 

I don't know how much he really questioned it though.  He seemed to think that he would get treasure even into his time as a prophet with his revelation about finding treasure in Salem and them searching for it when they visited in 1836.  It seems like a very natural thing, I know a lot of people today in our world that constantly get caught up in money making schemes.  I think its even more common in Utah and within Mormon culture.  The idea of getting rich quick is very compelling.  Do all the people that buy into these schemes, even the ones who perpetuate the schemes themselves, do they all realize they are being deceived?  I'm not sure that they do.  

Check out some of the interviews done with Bernie Madoff sometime.  Does he sound like someone who didn't buy into his own scheme.  He does to me.  

https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/radiolab-presents-ponzi-supernova/

 

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If God was "working through him," then that falls within Option C (he was a prophet, The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be).

If God was not "working through him," then that falls within Option A (insane / deluded / deceived).

The trilemma at work!

Would you call a painting by Van Gogh inspired?  How about a symphony by Beethoven?  If those works are inspired, how do you determine what paint strokes of the painting were inspired and which ones weren't.  Which notes in the symphony were inspired notes and which ones weren't?  Are the authors of these works prophets?  Where does inspiration begin and end, and how can anyone know.  

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Not deceived because that would imply a sentient supernatural agent that is doing the deceiving. 

It could.  Or it could imply that he was duped by a contemporary (there have been some theories about this, none of which I find meaningful or useful).

Quote

I think he learned a lot from contemporaries involved in treasure digging, Luman Walters, the Chase family, his Dad and others.  It was part of his milieu, probably no different than me learning about collecting baseball cards when I was a kid.  It was normal, natural, and real to him, all of it.  But I think he also began to realize that he had a talent or knack for it.  I imagine at some point that he questioned whether the treasures and other things he claimed to see in his stone were in actually there in reality. 

But he didn't just claim to see things "in his stone."  He claims to have been visited by Moroni, who showed him in vision where to get the plates.  Then he walked out of his house and to a nearby hill, which is the place shown him by the angel.  And then...

Quote

51 Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. This stone was thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth.

52 Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them.

53 I made an attempt to take them out, but was forbidden by the messenger, and was again informed that the time for bringing them forth had not yet arrived, neither would it, until four years from that time; but he told me that I should come to that place precisely in one year from that time, and that he would there meet with me, and that I should continue to do so until the time should come for obtaining the plates.

...

59 At length the time arrived for obtaining the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate. On the twenty-second day of September, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven, having gone as usual at the end of another year to the place where they were deposited, the same heavenly messenger delivered them up to me with this charge: that I should be responsible for them; that if I should let them go carelessly, or through any neglect of mine, I should be cut off; but that if I would use all my endeavors to preserve them, until he, the messenger, should call for them, they should be protected.

He is describing actual locations, physical acts, and so on.

Later, there were witnesses who testified about the plates described above.  See here:

Quote

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

"Joseph Smith...has shown unto us the plates...which have the appearance of gold."

"We did handle [the plates] with our hands, and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship..."

"And this we bear record of with words of soberness..."

"For we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that said Smith has got the plates..."

How do we account for these things?

The trilemma forges ever on!

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 6, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

If God was "working through him," then that falls within Option C (he was a prophet, The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be).

If God was not "working through him," then that falls within Option A (insane / deluded / deceived).

The trilemma at work!

Would you call a painting by Van Gogh inspired? 

I don't know.

But Van Gogh never claimed to have been visited by an angel, who showed him where to dig up gold plates, which he then translated "by the gift and power of God."

Van Gogh created his own work.  Joseph Smith never claimed that about The Book of Mormon.  He declared it to be a translation of ancient records.

How do we account for Joseph's explanation for The Book of Mormon?  All roads end up at the trilemma, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But he didn't just claim to see things "in his stone."  He claims to have been visited by Moroni, who showed him in vision where to get the plates.  Then he walked out of his house and to a nearby hill, which is the place shown him by the angel.  And then...

Much of the Moroni narrative that we have today evolved quite a bit into a more cohesive narrative.  The earliest evidences of an angel story are closer to folk magic stories about treasure guardian spirits.   Mark Ashurst-McGee talks about this in his dissertation on the subject.  For believers in this milieu, these two things were compatible, religious experience and folk magic.  

As for the witness statements about physical plates, I understand there is considerable debate on the topic, with evidence on both sides.  My personal opinion is that there were plates, a manufactured object of some-kind, but that the witnesses didn't view it with their natural eyes, but they may have felt it though a cloth or some other medium.  

Edited September 6, 2018 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know.

But Van Gogh never claimed to have been visited by an angel, who showed him where to dig up gold plates, which he then translated "by the gift and power of God."

Van Gogh created his own work.  Joseph Smith never claimed that about The Book of Mormon.  He declared it to be a translation of ancient records.

How do we account for Joseph's explanation for The Book of Mormon?  All roads end up at the trilemma, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't know about Van Gogh and claims for inspiration from God, he may very well have made claims, or felt like God was inspiring his work privately.  Some people are more outspoken about their claims and others are less so.  I think this is more a personality trait than anything else.  How many LDS leaders claim angelic visits and inspiration by God.  Joseph was on one extreme end, but most people I know are much more reserved.  

[smac97]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Quote

But he didn't just claim to see things "in his stone."  He claims to have been visited by Moroni, who showed him in vision where to get the plates.  Then he walked out of his house and to a nearby hill, which is the place shown him by the angel.  And then...

Much of the Moroni narrative that we have today evolved quite a bit into a more cohesive narrative.  The earliest evidences of an angel story are closer to folk magic stories about treasure guardian spirits.   Mark Ashurst-McGee talks about his in his dissertation of the subject.  For believers in his milieu, these two things were compatible, religious experience and folk magic.  

I can appreciate that.

But belief in folk magic doesn't account for actual locations, physical acts, and an actual, physical artifact buried in the earth.  He didn't just see the plates in vision.  He dug them up.  And then he returned year after year until he was given possession of them.  And then he translated them somehow.  Then he showed them to the Eight Witnesses, who testified as to their physical reality.

This isn't metaphysical stuff.  It's physical stuff.

Just now, hope_for_things said:

As for the witness statements about physical plates, I understand there is considerable debate on the topic, with evidence on both sides. 

Yes.

Just now, hope_for_things said:

My personal opinion is that there were plates, a manufactured object of some-kind, but that the witnesses didn't view it with their natural eyes, but they may have felt it though a cloth or some other medium.  

My comments were intended to evaluage Joseph Smith as pertaining to his claims about the origins of The Book of Mormon.  As to that issue, I think we can reduce the options to A) the book being work product of an insane/deluded person ("Lunatic" / insane/deluded/deceived), B) the book being the work product of a duplicitous, dishonest person ("Liar" / fraud), or C) the book being what it claims to be, and what Joseph claimed it to be: an ancient prophetic record preserved and translated "by the gift and power of God" ("Lord" / divine).

So your choice in the trilemma as to the plates is Option B (fraud).  Is that correct?

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can appreciate that.

But belief in folk magic doesn't account for actual locations, physical acts, and an actual, physical artifact buried in the earth.  He didn't just see the plates in vision.  He dug them up.  And then he returned year after year until he was given possession of them.  And then he translated them somehow.  Then he showed them to the Eight Witnesses, who testified as to their physical reality.

This isn't metaphysical stuff.  It's physical stuff.

I agree that there are physical components in the sources we have that describe these events.  I also think the eight witnesses likely had some kind of physical interaction, but I'm not 100% sure about that.  Its plausible to me, that it might have included some touching, but no actual seeing.  At any rate, I know the written statement (whoever wrote it, I'm not 100% sure, do we know who the author of the witness statement was, was it Oliver or Joseph or someone else) contains a description of them seeing and turning the pages.  There are other evidences that make me question that aspect.  At any rate, its definitely not a cut and dry slam dunk from my perspective.  

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My comments were intended to evaluage Joseph Smith as pertaining to his claims about the origins of The Book of Mormon.  As to that issue, I think we can reduce the options to A) the book being work product of an insane/deluded person ("Lunatic" / insane/deluded/deceived), B) the book being the work product of a duplicitous, dishonest person ("Liar" / fraud), or C) the book being what it claims to be, and what Joseph claimed it to be: an ancient prophetic record preserved and translated "by the gift and power of God" ("Lord" / divine).

So your choice in the trilemma as to the plates is Option B (fraud).  Is that correct?

Well, I understand you're trying to categorize things in a simple package, but I just don't think those categories work.  Hopefully you understand better after my last few replies that you can't really fit my perspective into Options A, B, or C.  Its just not that simple from my vantage point.  

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that there are physical components in the sources we have that describe these events. 

And those physical components bring us back to the trilemma, I think.  Probably Option B or Option C.

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I also think the eight witnesses likely had some kind of physical interaction, but I'm not 100% sure about that.  Its plausible to me, that it might have included some touching, but no actual seeing. 

From their testimony (emphases added):

Quote

Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. 

From FAIR: "Richard Anderson described multiple accounts of all the Witnesses bearing testimony and reaffirming their published testimony..."

And this (also from FAIR):

Quote

Some have tried to argue that the Eight witnesses only claimed a 'spiritual' or 'visionary' view of the plates, not a literal, physical one

Critics of the Church attempt to dismiss the experience of the Eight Witnesses by claiming that their view of the plates was not literal. The critics attempt to argue that the witnesses only 'saw' the plates in a spiritual state, and then were allowed to heft a covered box. This flatly contradicts their own reports, and those of others.^[5] Richard Anderson has collected eight accounts of John Whitmer's that confirm the reality of his handling of the plates.^[6] The critics ignore much documentary evidence in John Whitmer's case alone, simply because his witness is inconvenient for their speculations.

William Smith summarized the matter well when he said of all the Eight witnesses

that they not only Saw with their eyes but handled with their hands the said record . . . nor has either or any one of these witnesses ever to my knowledge Counteracted the testimony as given above Concerning the real existence of these Mormon tablets.^[7]

The Eight witnesses consistently affirmed the accuracy of their published testimony, and the physical reality of their experience. The critics will have to seek elsewhere to support their speculations.

And so on.

The trilemma reduces our options to A) the book being work product of an insane/deluded person ("Lunatic" / insane/deluded/deceived), B) the book being the work product of a duplicitous, dishonest person ("Liar" / fraud), or C) the book being what it claims to be, and what Joseph claimed it to be: an ancient prophetic record preserved and translated "by the gift and power of God" ("Lord" / divine).

Option A doesn't seem to work as to the testimony of the Eight Witnesses.  The physical reality of the plates is simply too well-attested.

So we're left with Option B (fraud) or Option C (authentically ancient plates).

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

At any rate, I know the written statement (whoever wrote it, I'm not 100% sure, do we know who the author of the witness statement was, was it Oliver or Joseph or someone else) contains a description of them seeing and turning the pages.  There are other evidences that make me question that aspect.  At any rate, its definitely not a cut and dry slam dunk from my perspective.  

I'm okay with that.  For now, I'm just running the trilemma through its paces.  It seems to be holding up well so far.

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, I understand you're trying to categorize things in a simple package, but I just don't think those categories work. 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  I think they work really well.

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Hopefully you understand better after my last few replies that you can't really fit my perspective into Options A, B, or C.  Its just not that simple from my vantage point.  

As to the reality of the plates, I think the trilemma works quite well.

If there were no plates, then Option A is the apparent explanation for the Eight Witnesses and their testimony.  Boy, it's weak, though.  

If there were plates, then they were either a fabricated hoax, or authentically ancient.  If they were a fabricated hoax, then Option B is the explanation.  If they authentically ancient, then Option C is the explanation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If God was "working through him," then that falls within Option C (he was a prophet, The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be).

If God was not "working through him," then that falls within Option A (insane / deluded / deceived).

The trilemma at work!

According to the text, the issue isn't necessarily about whether "The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be." Rather, it's about whether it "inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him." According to the Book of Mormon, books that invite and entice you to do good and to love God and to serve God are in fact inspired of God (Moroni 7:13). The real question, then, is whether it is possible, even in theory, for a book that "isn't what it claims to be" to actually be inspired of God? Could inspired fiction exist, even in principle?

Personally, when I read Moroni 7 I get the impression that the author is making a rationalization about how the book could be of God despite the fact that some elements of it are obviously fraudulent, i.e. yes, it is obviously false, but it invites you to love God, therefore it must be inspired by God. So if the book is a lie in a technical sense, is it possible for Moroni 7 to be true anyway? Can a book created by a Liar or a Lunatic inspire you to love God? If so, the book is in fact inspired by God according to the logic laid out in Moroni 7. So if something is inspired by God, why dismiss it as being the work of a liar or lunatic?

Edited September 6, 2018 by Analytics

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've never heard the Book of Mormon described as a "type for Christ". Can you explain that a little?

Both Christ and the Book of Mormon:

were buried

taken out of the ground by Angelic proclamation 

has twelve witness

declare the gospel

were taken back to heaven to come again

initiate a new dispensation or missionary work 

bring salvation to men

 

to name a few things.

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

According to the text, the issue isn't necessarily about whether "The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be." Rather, it's about whether it "inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him."

I guess we'll have to disagree about that.  I think the book's message is heavily tied up with its historicity.  I have touched on this issue before here:

Quote

The Value of The Book of Mormon is Inextricably Linked to its Historicity

A popular refrain from the "Inspired Fiction" folks is that The Book of Mormon has value even if it is entirely fictional, just like the parables of Jesus need not be literally historical in order to have value.  However, I disagree with this comparison.   Parables have value irrespective of their historicity, I agree with that. However, Jesus Christ being the Son of God and Savior of the world only has value because of the historicity tied up with that declaration. Historicity matters when we consider various scriptural passages, such as this one: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Absent historicity, this passage has no salvific meaning or value. Without historicity, Jesus would be just another admirable fictional character, like Atticus Finch, or Samwise Gamgee, or Captain America. Jesus would be about as valuable to me as an imaginary life preserver would be to a drowning man.

In his article "Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon" (published in the above volume), Kent P. Jackson asks, "what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?"  He goes on (emphasis added):

  Quote

Can the Book of Mormon indeed be 'true,' in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events?" (Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, pp. 137-138.)

Can a person have faith in The Book of Mormon while simultaneously rejecting The Book of Mormon as to its historicity? I don't think so. Such a concept renders Joseph Smith a fraud and a liar, and the book itself a fraud and a lie. A fictional Book of Mormon has no real power, and renders it as nothing more than a quirky self-help book. It becomes no more relevant to the salvation of men than Awaken the Giant Within by Anthony Robbins or How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. These are useful books, to be sure. For some, they are even life changing. But The Book of Mormon declares itself to be the word of God through inspired prophets.

Can a person have faith in Christ while simultaneously rejecting Christ as an actual, historical figure? I don't think so. Rejecting the historicity of Christ renders Christ a fictional role model, like Atticus Finch or Gandalf. A fictional Christ has no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save.

I think the Inspired Fiction folks have not really thought through the ramifications of their proposal.   The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship." This is why I find advocacy of this approach problematic. Such advocates are steering others up a spiritual blind alley; a path, I think, which sooner or later will culminate in a crisis of faith and/or a rejection of The Book of Mormon. After all, one who rejects its historicity has already rejected a substantive, even vital, part of the book. Rejecting the rest of it would seem to be just a matter of time.  I think an affirmative denial of the book's historicity will, sooner or later, become fatal to a testimony of the book. Ambivalence about historicity is perhaps possible, but affirmative denial is, I think, not compatible with an enduring and efficacious testimony of The Book of Mormon.

Consider the Title Page from an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view:

> THE BOOK OF MORMON - AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF MORMON

Proponents of the "inspired fiction" theory, in reading this, are compelled to say something like this: "Just kiddin! There was no such person named Mormon. He never existed. Joseph Smith lied or was deluded when he taught anything to the contrary."

> UPON PLATES TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI

Again, no dice. There was no Lehi, hence no Nephi, hence no Nephites or records of the Nephites. Hence no abridgment of these records. Hence no Gold Plates. Joseph Smith lied about these plates ever existing. Or he fabricated them and then actively deceived eleven eyewitnesses with faux relics.

Oh, and also, the Three Witnesses lied when they testified that "that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon." Either that, or God sent an angel with fake plates to deceive the Witnesses and the millions of people who have read their testimony. Conspiratorial lying and deception on a grand scale is, sadly, the only option for people who reject the historicity of The Book of Mormon.

> Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—

No and no. There were no Nephites or Lamanites. From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, these are lies and deceptions.

> Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel;

More lies. There were no Lamanites.

> and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment,

More lies. From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, Joseph Smith or one of his contemporaries wrote the book. Not Mormon or the Nephite prophets.

> and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—

From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, The Book of Mormon is a fraud and a lie, and hence could not be written "by the spirit of prophecy."

> Written and sealed up,

Another lie. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, hence nothing was sealed up.

> and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—

More lies. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, hence nothing to be hidden or potentially destroyed.

> To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—

More lies. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, ergo nothing to be translated. From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, Joseph Smith or one of his contemporaries wrote the book.

> Sealed by the hand of Moroni,

Another lie. Moroni never existed.

> and hid up unto the Lord,

Another lie. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, hence no records to be "hid up."

> to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

More lies. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, ergo nothing to "come forth" and nothing to be interpreted.

> An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared,

Lies upon lies. There were no Jaredites, ergo no Book of Either, ergo no abridgment of their records.

> who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—

More lies. There were no Jaredites, ergo no such persons were at the Tower of Babel.

> Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—

Lies. There were no Nephites, ergo no portion of the remnant of the House of Israel have the Nephites as their fathers, ergo there is nothing which the Lord did for the non-existent Nephites. Lies, lies, lies.

> And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—

From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, the Jew and the Gentile are to be convinced that Jesus is the Christ by way of a book that purports to an ancient record, but is in fact a lie and a fraud? How "convincing" can a book fraught with lies and deceit be?

> And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, how can there be "faults" in a book which is a monstrous lie? What are its faults? That it's not fraudulent enough?  From the "inspired fiction" point of view, look how many lies The Book of Mormon has piled up for itself.  

All of the above is just from the Title Page.  The "Inspired Fiction" destroys the utility of The Book of Mormon as scripture.  Ever single page of it.  This is why I simply cannot wrap my head around a fourth theory underlying the "inspired fiction" concept, which is that Joseph Smith was deluded / deceived and dishonest / fraudulent and honest / correct in his claims about the book. That makes no kind of sense whatsoever. Elder Oaks was right: "This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship."

Also consider this quote from Elder Oaks (same link):

Quote

Elder Oaks: "There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors' declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship. ... The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived." (Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, p. 244.)

That, to me, is a compelling statement.

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

According to the Book of Mormon, books that invite and entice you to do good and to love God and to serve God are in fact inspired of God (Moroni 7:13).

Kent Jackson's remarks above seem salient.

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The real question, then, is whether it is possible, even in theory, for a book that "isn't what it claims to be" to actually be inspired of God? Could inspired fiction exist, even in principle?

In the abstract?  Yes.  In the particular of the Book of Mormon?  No, I don't think so.

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Personally, when I read Moroni 7 I get the impression that the author is making a rationalization about how the book could be of God despite the fact that some elements of it are obviously fraudulent, i.e. yes, it is obviously false, but it invites you to love God, therefore it must be inspired by God.

Okay.

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

So if the book is a lie in a technical sense, is it possible for Moroni 7 to be true anyway?

Again, Kent Jackson's remarks above seem salient.  YMMV.

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Can a book created by a Liar or a Lunatic inspire you to love God?

But we don't just have the book by Joseph the (Theoretical) Liar/Lunatic.  We have claims of angelic ministers restoring priesthood authority, by which saving ordinances are administered, by which the Church is lead.  We have the Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.  And so on.  

Joseph Smith as a flawed-but-overwhelmingly-good man and prophet called of God?  Yes, I can accommodate that.  Joseph Smith has a Liar/Lunatic who lied-or-was-deluded/insane about the plates, who lied-or-was-deluded/insane about the angels, who lied-or-was-deluded/insane about the visions, who lied-or-was-deluded/insane about the restoration of priesthood authority, who lied-or-was-deluded/insane about further revelvations, etc.?  Nope.  Can't go there.

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If so, the book is in fact inspired by God according to the logic laid out in Moroni 7.

I don't think God would inspire a book of lies.

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

So if something is inspired by God, why dismiss it as being the work of a liar or lunatic?

Because God is the god of truth.  Not of lies and lunacy.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mrmarklin]

The real problem with the BoM naysayers is that there were contemporaneous witnesses to the existence of the plates.  And if the plates exist, then the translation is likely good as well.  This was never contradicted by the witnesses in their life time, even though some had left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

And if the BoM is true, then Joseph was a prophet.

Of course, one can disregard the testimony of witnesses, and many have.  But it is compelling.

Edited September 6, 2018 by mrmarklin
Clarity

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, SteveO said:

This is the second time this past month on this board that I've seen the claim Joseph did what he did for money.  Am I missing something here?  I was under the impression that there was never a time in the whole of his life, that Joseph was financially stable/secure.

He did try to sell the copyright of the BoM for money, and he did own property and live in a "mansion house" in Nauvoo.

[Benjamin Seeker]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

And those physical components bring us back to the trilemma, I think.  Probably Option B or Option C.

From their testimony (emphases added):

From FAIR: "Richard Anderson described multiple accounts of all the Witnesses bearing testimony and reaffirming their published testimony..."

And this (also from FAIR):

And so on.

The trilemma reduces our options to A) the book being work product of an insane/deluded person ("Lunatic" / insane/deluded/deceived), B) the book being the work product of a duplicitous, dishonest person ("Liar" / fraud), or C) the book being what it claims to be, and what Joseph claimed it to be: an ancient prophetic record preserved and translated "by the gift and power of God" ("Lord" / divine).

Option A doesn't seem to work as to the testimony of the Eight Witnesses.  The physical reality of the plates is simply too well-attested.

So we're left with Option B (fraud) or Option C (authentically ancient plates).

I'm okay with that.  For now, I'm just running the trilemma through its paces.  It seems to be holding up well so far.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  I think they work really well.

As to the reality of the plates, I think the trilemma works quite well.

If there were no plates, then Option A is the apparent explanation for the Eight Witnesses and their testimony.  Boy, it's weak, though.  

If there were plates, then they were either a fabricated hoax, or authentically ancient.  If they were a fabricated hoax, then Option B is the explanation.  If they authentically ancient, then Option C is the explanation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Where would you place the Taves hypothesis in the trilemma - modern plates that were manufactured under the sincere belief that it was God’s will and were an accurate recreation of legitimate ancient plates? Sounds like B to me with a touch of A?

An even more fun hypothetical - imagine  God really did command JS to manufacture plates as a sacred recreated relic, which he then presented as ancient to followers? Still B, but now with some C in there?

Lastly, imagine God commanded JS to make plates, and JS believed that they were a sacred recreated relic, only there weren’t any plates or Nephites or any of it in actuality. Again B but now with some A and some C?

Edited September 7, 2018 by Benjamin Seeker

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm surprised I've never really thought about this before.  First, let's review what the trilemma is:

It seems this trilemma can be adapted to apply as a rebuttal to the "Inspired Fiction" theory.  The Book of Mormon is either A) the work product of an insane/deluded person ("Lunatic"), B) the work product of a duplicitous, dishonest person ("Liar"), or C) what it claims to be: an ancient prophetic record preserved and translated "by the gift and power of God" ("Lord").

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Thoughts?

I don't get it.

Okay so he was one of the three. How does this help us decide which one he was? I've got to be missing something here what is it?

How exactly does this prove that he was what he said he was?

Plus the fact that I am always suspicious when someone says there's only one or two or three options?

There is always probably a hundred different options.

I mean if you look at what Taves says about the Book of Mormon it becomes a very complex question.

Edited September 7, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Glenn101]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I mean if you look at what Taves says about the Book of Mormon it becomes a very complex question. 

One can ask dozens of questions and debate for a day less than the Melennial debut, but the only relevant question is really did Joseph Smith "translate" the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God? After that, there will be no doubt.I doubt there will be a consensus before then, even among some members of  the church.

Glenn

[Rajah Manchou]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

If there were no plates, then Option A is the apparent explanation for the Eight Witnesses and their testimony.  Boy, it's weak, though.  

If there were plates, then they were either a fabricated hoax, or authentically ancient.  If they were a fabricated hoax, then Option B is the explanation.  If they authentically ancient, then Option C is the explanation.

Try applying the same categories on something that you have no investment in.

I was in a small village in Burma two years ago where I was taken to a small church and shown a large book of leather. The villagers claim that the book is a translation of an ancient golden book documenting the history of their people from the creation to the end times. There is content in the book describing the return of a messiah-like figure and instructions regarding preparation for the return of this messiah. This was supposedly once a physical text, similar to those found on golden metal plates in neighboring villages.

On a Karen Inscription Plate

Now for the hard part. The script used to write this translation was supposedly revealed by an angel in a white robe to a village prophet in 1834. Western scholars who have examined the script do find that it is authentically original and ancient, and have no explanation as to the origins of the text. It appears to be an authentic ancient text written in an authentic ancient script and the only explanation provided is that it was revealed to a prophet in the 1830s by an angel in a white robe and glowing letters on a rock. 

Would you say this book is: (1) the product of a madman, (2) the product of a liar, or (3) authentically ancient?

Or is there a category we are missing?

Edited September 7, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Alan]

16 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

Perhaps he didn't really have physical plates (lie) but felt he was inspired to write it for the benefit of men.

 

That, of course, presents us with the problem that 11 other people saw them.

[SteveO]

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Try applying the same categories on something that you have no investment in.

I was in a small village in Burma two years ago where I was taken to a small church and shown a large book of leather. The villagers claim that the book is a translation of an ancient golden book documenting the history of their people from the creation to the end times. There is content in the book describing the return of a messiah-like figure and instructions regarding preparation for the return of this messiah. This was supposedly once a physical text, similar to those found on golden metal plates in neighboring villages.

On a Karen Inscription Plate

Now for the hard part. The script used to write this translation was supposedly revealed by an angel in a white robe to a village prophet in 1834. Western scholars who have examined the script do find that it is authentically original and ancient, and have no explanation as to the origins of the text. It appears to be an authentic ancient text written in an authentic ancient script and the only explanation provided is that it was revealed to a prophet in the 1830s by an angel in a white robe and glowing letters on a rock. 

Would you say this book is: (1) the product of a madman, (2) the product of a liar, or (3) authentically ancient?

Or is there a category we are missing?

Number 3, that isn’t something that would bother too many members here.  We know there were other places Christ visited after His resurrection, we know there are other records out there.  The story is faith promoting...

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Try applying the same categories on something that you have no investment in.

I was in a small village in Burma two years ago where I was taken to a small church and shown a large book of leather. The villagers claim that the book is a translation of an ancient golden book documenting the history of their people from the creation to the end times.

Interesting!  What do we know of the text?  Of the provenance of the book itself?  Who wrote it?  When?

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

There is content in the book describing the return of a messiah-like figure and instructions regarding preparation for the return of this messiah. This was supposedly once a physical text, similar to those found on golden metal plates in neighboring villages.

On a Karen Inscription Plate

Now for the hard part. The script used to write this translation was supposedly revealed by an angel in a white robe to a village prophet in 1834.

CFR, if you please.

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Western scholars who have examined the script do find that it is authentically original and ancient, and have no explanation as to the origins of the text.

Again, CFR, please.

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

It appears to be an authentic ancient text

Yes.

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

written in an authentic ancient script

Maybe.  Has anyone been able to translate it?

What are your thoughts on the Voynich Manuscript?

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

and the only explanation provided is that it was revealed to a prophet in the 1830s by an angel in a white robe and glowing letters on a rock.

Again, CFR.

Quote

Would you say this book is: (1) the product of a madman, (2) the product of a liar, or (3) authentically ancient?

No idea.  We apparently don't know who wrote it, or if the text is meaningful or gibberish, or if the text has been translated, or if the text - once translated - includes any testable claims, and so on.

This is quite a different scenario than Joseph Smith and The Book of Mormon.  But in the ened, the trilemma applies, yes.  We just don't have enough information to apply it in any meaningful, useful way.

Quote

Or is there a category we are missing?

Not that I can see.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thoughts?

I don't get it.

Okay so he was one of the three. How does this help us decide which one he was? I've got to be missing something here what is it?

Think of it as a sort of "differential diagnosis" exercise.

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How exactly does this prove that he was what he said he was?

The trilemma doesn't really "prove" anything.  It's a framework.

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Plus the fact that I am always suspicious when someone says there's only one or two or three options?

In the end, I think all options for explaining the origins of the Book of Mormon boil down to the trilemma.

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There is always probably a hundred different options.

But all variations on the three set forth in the trilemma.

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I mean if you look at what Taves says about the Book of Mormon it becomes a very complex question.

Not really.  Taves proposes that Joseph fabricated the plates, then asked God to sanctify them, "to materialize them into the ancient gold plates."  That would still make Joseph Smith a fraud (Option B), since he claims he didn't fabricate the plates, and instead found them buried in the earth.  He claims that the plates were ancient artifacts, not a recent fabrication.  And what does it mean "to materialize them into the ancient gold plates," anyway?  How is it that plates fabricated in the 19th century could be converted into "ancient gold plates?"  Taves's theory is akin to saying "Joseph Smith asked God to create a square with no corners, water with no oxygen molecules in it, and sunlit darkness."  These things are inherently contradictory. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rajah Manchou]

5 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Number 3, that isn’t something that would bother too many members here.  We know there were other places Christ visited after His resurrection, we know there are other records out there.  The story is faith promoting...

This is the most common response I receive from members.
But if #3, and an authentically ancient record of the Son of God as these villagers claim, what then?

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Where would you place the Taves hypothesis in the trilemma - modern plates that were manufactured under the sincere belief that it was God’s will and were an accurate recreation of legitimate ancient plates? Sounds like B to me with a touch of A?

Option B (fraud).  

Proposition A: Taves's hypothesis that Joseph Smith fabricated the plates.

Proposition B: Joseph Smith claims to have been visited by Moroni, who showed him where to find authentically ancient plates buried in the earth.

If Proposition A is correct, then Proposition B is false, and hence Joseph Smith is a fraud (Option B in the trilemma).

If Proposition B is correct, then Proposition A is false and Joseph Smith is a prophet (Option C in the trilemma).

Quote

An even more fun hypothetical - imagine  God really did command JS to manufacture plates as a sacred recreated relic, which he then presented as ancient to followers? Still B, but now with some C in there?

That's more of a flight of fancy than a serious inquiry.

And it still folds into Option B (fraud), because it contravenes what Joseph Smith said about the plates.

And it's not a particularly serious hypothetical.  God, the "God of Truth," instructed Joseph Smith to fabricate plates and then lie and tell everyone around him that they are of ancient derivation?  God sent an angel to show the fabricated-in-the-19th-century plates to the Three Witnesses?  And told them to bear testimony about these fabricated-in-the-19th-century plates being "a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared," when in fact they were created by Joseph Smith?

Quote

Lastly, imagine God commanded JS to make plates, and JS believed that they were a sacred recreated relic, only there weren’t any plates or Nephites or any of it in actuality. Again B but now with some A and some C?

It still folds into Option B (fraud), because it contravenes what Joseph Smith said about the plates.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 7, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Number 3, that isn’t something that would bother too many members here.  We know there were other places Christ visited after His resurrection, we know there are other records out there.  The story is faith promoting...

The Karen plate has been cited at least twice in LDS publications.  See here and here.

Thanks,

-Smac