A Fictional Book Of Mormon?

[Pahoran]

I do not mean to be unkind, but your explanation stretches credibility leagues beyond the breaking point. In fact, it has the unfortunate effect of making the Joseph Smith story vulnerable to rejection out-of-hand. What is your source for your claim that the plates were "dematerialized"? How do you reconcile the testimony of the witnesses with what you state above?

Cobalt apparently thinks Joseph had them under a confundus charm. Perhaps the salamander told him to do it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

I do not mean to be unkind, but your explanation stretches credibility leagues beyond the breaking point. In fact, it has the unfortunate effect of making the Joseph Smith story vulnerable to rejection out-of-hand. What is your source for your claim that the plates were "dematerialized"? How do you reconcile the testimony of the witnesses with what you state above?

Well you don't know me, but I am a TBM- or at least I self-identify as one. But, straight up? When I first heard about angels and golden plates telling stories about people who have never been shown to exist archaeologically and besides the fact that the plates were all taken away by the angel- I think the stretch of credibility is clearly not in thinking that Joseph hallucinated the whole thing. In fact, it seems the most likely scenario other than pure fraud.

But fortunately God decided for some reason known only to him, to whap me over the head with a spiritual experience which left me without a doubt that "the church is true", though I have been thinking about what that means ever since.

Paraphrasing Joseph, when God tells you something, you know that you know it and God knows that you know it.

And let me tell you, I am not about to argue with the Creator of the universe.

Edited August 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Sorry I wasn't more clear.

No problem - I was probably just being dense, as usual!

[mfbukowski]

That's far from clear to me.

Regards,

Pahoran

Well I guess that settles it.

I was just being dense.

[Libs]

If the Book of Mormon is a work of the 19th century and "inspired fiction" as some suggest, what are we to conclude therefrom about the integrity of Joseph Smith? Those who characterize the book as "inspired fiction" must assume that Joseph Smith fabricated the means by which it was produced. Or do they have some other explanation?

If a book has been inspired by God, then one is not going to assume, the person through which the book came, was a fraud or a fabricator. A fraud would be someone who just made it all up. That is not what people, who believe the Book of Mormon may be "inspired fiction" are saying. Not at all. Inspired fiction implies that God had his hand in it...that God inspired the writing and used Joseph Smith to bring it forth.

[moonlight12]

If a book has been inspired by God, then one is not going to assume, the person through which the book came, was a fraud or a fabricator. A fraud would be someone who just made it all up. That is not what people, who believe the Book of Mormon may be "inspired fiction" are saying. Not at all. Inspired fiction implies that God had his hand in it...that God inspired the writing and used Joseph Smith to bring it forth.

What you write makes sense, but only as far as it goes. I'm convinced the book was translated under divine influence (just as Joseph said it was). What is problematic, however--if one accepts the "inspired fiction" scenario--is the means/process by which the plates came into Joseph's possession and the fact that it was necessary for him to even have them. If Joseph was merely writing inspired fiction, and according to accounts by several witnesses to the translation process he didn't even look at the plates, what role did the plates play? Why did he have to wait years to obtain them and risk life and limb to secure them? Was it to be able to show something tangible to the witnesses?

[William Schryver]

The prophethood of a person who creates fictional scripture is no less "meaningful" than that of any other prophet.

I have no doubt that you sincerely believe this. Indeed, I perceive that the rationale behind your statement is rather typical of those Bill has described as "marginal Mormons."

However, I categorically reject your rationale. It is not only plainly illogical, but, in my judgment, it springs forth from the devil himself, and is at the very root of his strategy to draw away many of the Saints from the moorings of their faith, as it has you.

A prophet who creates fictional scripture in the fashion you propose is no prophet at all. Rather, if this were the nature of the production of the Book of Mormon, it would make the book false, and Joseph Smith a fraud. It is an apostate doctrine, and those who are persuaded thereby, if they are not already, will soon become apostates themselves.

Edited August 23, 2012 by William Schryver

[Libs]

What you write makes sense, but only as far as it goes. I'm convinced the book was translated under divine influence (just as Joseph said it was). What is problematic, however--if one accepts the "inspired fiction" scenario--is the means/process by which the plates came into Joseph's possession and the fact that it was necessary for him to even have them. If Joseph was merely writing inspired fiction, and according to accounts by several witnesses to the translation process he didn't even look at the plates, what role did the plates play? Why did he have to wait years to obtain them and risk life and limb to secure them? Was it to be able to show something tangible to the witnesses?

I don't think anyone is saying the plates were not "real" or the ordeal that Joseph went through to get them, did not happen. It could still all be true, the plates, the first vision, the visits from Moroni, priesthood restoration, etc. Many of the stories in the Bible are not literally true, but allegory. A lot of people even believe Genesis is allegorical and not literally true. But, it still teaches about our relationship with God and how it can go bad through disobedience.

[moonlight12]

I don't think anyone is saying the plates were not "real" or the ordeal that Joseph went through to get them, did not happen. It could still all be true, the plates, the first vision, the visits from Moroni, priesthood restoration, etc. Many of the stories in the Bible are not literally true, but allegory. A lot of people even believe Genesis is allegorical and not literally true. But, it still teaches about our relationship with God and how it can go bad through disobedience.

Perhaps you have stated your position previously and I have missed it. If so, my apologies. Do you believe the "It could still all be true" (the official version of the Joseph Smith story), or do you believe the story is allegorical?

[Libs]

Btw, I don't think a belief in a fictional Book of Mormon means someone is apostacizing or on their way out. I have seen it as a last effort to hang on to a belief in the church (as it was for me). People who are done with the church will gladly accept that it's, not only "fiction", but wholly fabricated by Joseph Smith.

[Libs]

Perhaps you have stated your position previously and I have missed it. If so, my apologies. Do you believe the "It could still all be true" (the official version of the Joseph Smith story), or do you believe the story is allegorical?

I, honestly, don't know. I do think there are some problems with the "inspired fiction" version...mainly, that it cannot really stand as a Testament or "testimony" of Christ, if it is ALL fiction. Perhaps, it's a little of both. I don't really much care, at this point. I love the Book of Mormon, and it has brought me closer to Christ...so, I am not inclined to question it, much, anymore.

[moonlight12]

I, honestly, don't know. I do think there are some problems with the "inspired fiction" version...mainly, that it cannot really stand as a Testament or "testimony" of Christ, if it is ALL fiction. Perhaps, it's a little of both. I don't really much care, at this point. I love the Book of Mormon, and it has brought me closer to Christ...so, I am not inclined to question it, much, anymore.

I understand. You love the Book of Mormon because of its priceless, enriching contribution to your life. For you, the process by which it came about is irrelevant. You and I are on the same page (or pages ). We are pragmatists; i.e., if something works, it is true (highly simplified definition).

[Libs]

I understand. You love the Book of Mormon because of its priceless, enriching contribution to your life. For you, the process by which it came about is irrelevant. You and I are on the same page (or pages ). We are pragmatists; i.e., if something works, it is true (highly simplified definition).

If something works, it is true.....haha..I like that.

I don't know if we are on the same page in all things, church related (I am actually inactive right now), but on the Book of Mormon..yes.

[Cobalt-70]

Good grief, are you serious? You mean to tell me that a man who invents a fictional story of a visitation of the resurrected Christ is more of a prophet than a man who reveals an authentic story of a Christophany, or who has an authentic Christophany himself? Really?

Translating the Book of Mormon did not involve a Christophany. All it involved was either (1) translating some other prophet's inspired scripture from one language into another, or (2) creating his own prophetic work of scripture. In the first instance, Smith is just a magical version of Google Translate. In the second, he is a prophet.

[Cobalt-70]

Let's assume this is "what actually happened" for the sake of argument. It was a kind of hallucination, perhaps divine perhaps not.

Isn't a work termed "fiction" deliberately written knowingly as "fiction"? Clearly it might be "inspired" by your account, but would it be "fiction"?

I think that whether or not it is fiction depends on whether or not it is understood by the reader as having a correspondence to real happenings. I don't think the author's intent matters. One person's fiction can be another person's non-fiction.

[volgadon]

I think that whether or not it is fiction depends on whether or not it is understood by the reader as having a correspondence to real happenings. I don't think the author's intent matters. One person's fiction can be another person's non-fiction.

All the readers in the world wouldn't make any of the Doctor Syn stories non-fiction, this non-too-serious timeline http://www.pjfarmer.com/woldnewton/Syn.htm and Walt Disney's assertion notwithstanding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8JpJU97y7Y

[Cobalt-70]

I do not mean to be unkind, but your explanation stretches credibility leagues beyond the breaking point. In fact, it has the unfortunate effect of making the Joseph Smith story vulnerable to rejection out-of-hand. What is your source for your claim that the plates were "dematerialized"? How do you reconcile the testimony of the witnesses with what you state above?

Smtih told his mother, his sister, and Joseph Knight, at least, about the plates dematerializing from one location and rematerializing in another:

Lucy Mack Smith, 1845, (see p. 345)

Joseph Knight, 1833, (see p. 2)

Katharine Smith Salisbury, 1895, (see p. 14)

The three witnesses saw the plates in a vision, just as Smith did, and I think the eight witnesses was the plates in a vision as well, although everybody seemed to have hefted the chest in which the plates were kept. Even several nonbelievers, like Isaac Hale, got to do the heft test, but only very special people got to peek inside the box. During the witness visions, they examined the plates with their spirit eyes, and handled them with their spirit hands.

In D&C 17, the revelation sheds light on the nature of how Joseph Smith, and the three witnesses, were able to see the plates. Both Smith and by the three witnesses saw the plates "by faith" and "by my [God's] power." When describing the nature of the three witnesses' gift to see the plates, reference is made to Smith's ability to translate. (see v. 7). In that sense, the way that Smith "saw the plates" was by looking at the seer stone at the bottom of his hat. Perhaps that was the only way that Smith could see the plates.

[Pahoran]

Smtih told his mother, his sister, and Joseph Knight, at least, about the plates dematerializing from one location and rematerializing in another:

Did he?

Lucy Mack Smith, 1845, (see p. 345)

Joseph Knight, 1833, (see p. 2)

Katharine Smith Salisbury, 1895, (see p. 14)

I'm sorry, I don't see the words "dematerialize," "rematerialize" or any of their cognates therein. Do you mind pointing them out to us?

The three witnesses saw the plates in a vision, just as Smith did, and I think the eight witnesses was the plates in a vision as well,

Well you may think that, but it's not what they said.

although everybody seemed to have hefted the chest in which the plates were kept. Even several nonbelievers, like Isaac Hale, got to do the heft test, but only very special people got to peek inside the box. During the witness visions, they examined the plates with their spirit eyes, and handled them with their spirit hands.

Yes, that is the Dan Vogel Revised Version. It is not what they testified to.

But as a sceptic/debunker who likes to pose as some kind of believer, it is no doubt useful to you.

In D&C 17, the revelation sheds light on the nature of how Joseph Smith, and the three witnesses, were able to see the plates. Both Smith and by the three witnesses saw the plates "by faith" and "by my [God's] power." When describing the nature of the three witnesses' gift to see the plates, reference is made to Smith's ability to translate. (see v. 7). In that sense, the way that Smith "saw the plates" was by looking at the seer stone at the bottom of his hat. Perhaps that was the only way that Smith could see the plates.

So when he carried them home under his arm they were invisible?

Somehow I doubt it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Translating the Book of Mormon did not involve a Christophany. All it involved was either (1) translating some other prophet's inspired scripture from one language into another, or (2) creating his own prophetic work of scripture. In the first instance, Smith is just a magical version of Google Translate. In the second, he is a prophet.

As everyone knows, including you, the term "magic" and its cognates, when used in connection with LDS truth claims is always and without exception used to debunk and/or ridicule those claims.

Now I ask you, please, do not insult our intelligence with some fig-leaf equivocation to try to pretend that you're using it differently somehow. You're not. You never have.

You are entitled to believe that the Book of Mormon was Joseph's own creation. Just understand that this position is known as rejecting Joseph's claims. Those who accept Joseph's claims understand that he translated the writings of Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom et al by the gift and power of God.

Because that, and only that, is what he claimed to have done.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

Despite the fact that you are making this explanation up, if it were correct JS would be simply nuts, right?

Not any more nuts than any other prophet, or Jesus himself.

[Kevin Christensen]

What I would like to see from those who treat the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction would be readings that emphasize what inspires them, rather than putting forth self justifications for not taking it seriously as history, while asserting, without meaningful demonstration, that there is something inspiring going on.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Bill Hamblin]

What I would like to see from those who treat the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction would be readings that emphasize what inspires them, rather than putting forth self justifications for not taking it seriously as history, while asserting, without meaningful demonstration, that there is something inspiring going on.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Indeed

[William Schryver]

What I would like to see from those who treat the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction would be readings that emphasize what inspires them, rather than putting forth self justifications for not taking it seriously as history, while asserting, without meaningful demonstration, that there is something inspiring going on.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

EXACTLY!

[cwald]

EXACTLY!

Happens all the time on other boards like NOM or StayLDS.

I don't know why it doesn't happen here. I suppose it doesn't happen here because this board far too confrontational, and all about scoring points and being right, rather than discussing other opinions and alternative faiths and beliefs?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Happens all the time on other boards like NOM or StayLDS.

I don't know why it doesn't happen here. I suppose it doesn't happen here because this board far too confrontational, and all about scoring points and being right, rather than discussing other opinions and alternative faiths and beliefs?

I am sorry but this is false. We care about the truth of what is going on. We are not interested in pandering to some peoples fantasies. And we are not about scoring points. And I dare say that we discuss all sorts of "other opinions and alternative faiths and beliefs". What you don't like is that we just don't accept them and jump up and down about them.

Funny thing is that you essentially just attacked everyone on this board. And then you wonder why people get on your case for your opinion. So, we see that you can dish it but your sure as hell cant take it.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram