How Did Joseph Smith Know All Of This?

[Calm]

So let us know if you have something really, truly compelling that is the silver bullet that busts at least one church foundational truth claim, let alone all of them. Casting doubt doesn't count.

I think you are confusing canard with someone else.

[jwhitlock]

I think you are confusing canard with someone else.

Nope.

[canard78]

Last I looked, you were the one who brought up the flood as another way to criticize the church - just as you've expressed the same skepticism about Joseph Smith. I merely responded back that you obviously must have compelling evidence that it did NOT happen. I also responded that critics like to cast doubt, but don't seem to ever present absolute evidence that things aren't what the church claims.

What's your definition of a critic? A few posts back I said that I see validity to some of the evidence for and some of the evidence against LDS foundational claims but that I don't see it as being conclusive. There is no absolute evidence either way. I don't think you have absolute evidence that things are what the church claims. Do you?

So far, you simply continue to try to cast doubt without presenting compelling evidence to the contrary that makes it clear it couldn't have happened. I've responded to one of your doubt-casting claims (which I noticed you didn't bother to respond to), so I'm going to assume that you really don't have any compelling evidence at this point.

Again, considering that you brought it up, I find it disingenuous that you say I want to turn this into a debate about the flood. Nice piece of misdirection there.

Edit - and it even looks like you hoodwinked MDalby into believing I was turning it into a debate. Quite deceptive, I'd say.

Have you written in to the Ensign to express your particular concern about this? I've found that any subject has at least two (and usually more) sides that can be supported with whatever evidence supporters want to muster. Personally, I don't find the flood issue worth arguing about and I don't base any part of my faith on any particular interpretation of what might have happened.

However, since I don't doubt the foundational truth claims of the church and its prophets (and the number of foundational claims are really quite simple and limited), and since the flood is not one of those foundational truth claims, I can take a more dispassionate look at the flood and understand that there are ways that a global flood could have happened. They're as plausible as the doubt claims you list.

You don't find the flood worth arguing about and yet you are anyway? Given MDalby wants to keep this on topic I'll leave it at that.

In this thread, my main interest is simply at looking at how critics undermine the truth claims of the church by casting doubt.

My initial participation was to make the point that some of the 'bulls-eyes' are not what they seem. That they are seen as such by some but don't bear out on further investigation. In doing so I'm not trying to cast doubt on the claims of the church, I'm casting doubt on certain claims of historians and apologists. I don't think that all 'evidences' are helpful. I think that some are so illogical that they undermine other things that really are credible and do support our church's foundational claims.

I find reasonable and plausible evidence (from a rational standpoint) to support the church in its foundational truth claims, including the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and the validity of the Book of Abraham as scripture. I can do as well with plausible counterpoints to your doubt claims (such as you making an assumption that Everest actually existed at the time of the flood), but somehow I don't think that they would be accepted.

So let us know if you have something really, truly compelling that is the silver bullet that busts at least one church foundational truth claim, let alone all of them. Casting doubt doesn't count.

Do you think that's what I'm trying to do? I am trying to make sense of our origins and I'm not seeking a silver bullet.

I don't think the 'group think' mentality portrayed in the Ensign article is helpful. The "all good LDS believe XYZ" approach.

[jwhitlock]

What's your definition of a critic? A few posts back I said that I see validity to some of the evidence for and some of the evidence against LDS foundational claims but that I don't see it as being conclusive. There is no absolute evidence either way. I don't think you have absolute evidence that things are what the church claims. Do you?

I do have evidence that the foundational truth claims of the church are correct. I've followed the instructions and they work.

You don't find the flood worth arguing about and yet you are anyway? Given MDalby wants to keep this on topic I'll leave it at that.

Since I didn't say that, this makes twice that you've misrepresented my comments in this thread.

My initial participation was to make the point that some of the 'bulls-eyes' are not what they seem. That they are seen as such by some but don't bear out on further investigation. In doing so I'm not trying to cast doubt on the claims of the church, I'm casting doubt on certain claims of historians and apologists. I don't think that all 'evidences' are helpful. I think that some are so illogical that they undermine other things that really are credible and do support our church's foundational claims.

Many doubt claims against the church are also ludicrous once you dig down into them.

Do you think that's what I'm trying to do? I am trying to make sense of our origins and I'm not seeking a silver bullet.

In reality, there are some rather black and white foundational truth claims of the church. They're rather simple and straightforward, such as God does exist, Jesus Christ is our Savior and will come again, Joseph Smith was called of God as a prophet, Joseph was led to gold plates by an angel named Moroni, and the text of the Book of Mormon was contained on those gold plates. These are simple generalities and straightforward statements (and there are others) that Latter-day Saints consider to be true in their simplest form. When we try to "make sense" of the church by watering those down or making them conditional or optional in any way, we in effect deny those foundational truth claims.

I don't think the 'group think' mentality portrayed in the Ensign article is helpful. The "all good LDS believe XYZ" approach.

Then, as I noted before, you should contact the Ensign and express your concerns.

[JDave]

Unfettered with skeptical doubts, I can now try to understand what the story of the flood really means, while those driven by their doubts effectively bar themselves from coming to an understanding of the truth.

To claim that those with a different perspective than yours are less able to understand truth is amazingly audacious. Especially with respect to something that you claim is not a foundational truth and an issue you don't even consider worth arguing about. I may disagree with you, and I may disagree with canard78, but we all have equal opportunity to arrive at an understanding of the truth through the Spirit -- regardless of our current opinions about various topics. The scripture does not read "If any of you lack wisdom, yet have appropriate opinions, let him ask of God, that giveth to such men liberally." The only requirement I remember from that passage is faith.

[Calm]

To claim that those with a different perspective than yours are less able to understand truth is amazingly audacious. Especially with respect to something that you claim is not a foundational truth and an issue you don't even consider worth arguing about. I may disagree with you, and I may disagree with canard78, but we all have equal opportunity to arrive at an understanding of the truth through the Spirit -- regardless of our current opinions about various topics. The scripture does not read "If any of you lack wisdom, yet have appropriate opinions, let him ask of God, that giveth to such men liberally." The only requirement I remember from that passage is faith.

No points, so "well said".

[canard78]

I do have evidence that the foundational truth claims of the church are correct. I've followed the instructions and they work.

I'm fine with that kind of evidence. Just the other day a colleague, on finding out that I was Mormon said: "You're a professional researcher, so you believe, I presume, in empirical evidence...?"

I replied: "I do indeed. My empirical evidence is that when I live the principles as I understand them my life is better than when I don't. I've tried with and without and experience the difference every time. That's all the empirical evidence I need."

This proves the principles of the gospel are "true." It doesn't prove that the history of the Book of Mormon's origins are accurate (which is more what this thread is about). I think they are two different issues and as I said elsewhere, the second issue is not proven by the first.

Since I didn't say that, this makes twice that you've misrepresented my comments in this thread.

In one post you say: "I don't find the flood issue worth arguing about "? But in another you say: "...you have absolute evidence that there was no flood. Please do provide that evidence." So you don't want to argue about the flood, but you say I have no evidence there was no flood and ask me to provide evidence. Please choose one. If you do want to argue about the flood then start a new thread and I'll join you. My first mention of the flood was no to open a debate but as a sarcastic quip to Cinepro. I didn't introduce the flood to debate it but I don't mind doing so if you actually want to (on another thread).

Many doubt claims against the church are also ludicrous once you dig down into them.

I completely agree. Which is why I dismiss so many of them.

In reality, there are some rather black and white foundational truth claims of the church. They're rather simple and straightforward, such as (1) God does exist, (2) Jesus Christ is our Savior and will come again, (3) Joseph Smith was called of God as a prophet, (4) Joseph was led to gold plates by an angel named Moroni, and (5) the text of the Book of Mormon was contained on those gold plates. These are simple generalities and straightforward statements (and there are others) that Latter-day Saints consider to be true in their simplest form. When we try to "make sense" of the church by watering those down or making them conditional or optional in any way, we in effect deny those foundational truth claims.

Forgive my interpolations (the numbers in brackets), they're just for reference.

1 and 2 are essential. They are the foundation. A belief in God and a testimony of Christ is the 'chief cornerstone' of my faith.

3 is also important, though the nature of what 'prophet' and 'calling' means has changed, for me.

4 and 5 are not essential. We have the printed Book of Mormon. Living its principles (like you said at the top) is evidence enough that the origins are divine. Whether there were real plates which contains the writings of an historical Nephi and Mormon, given to Joseph by a real Moroni is not essential. I hope they are real as I'd like to meet them some day. But my participation in the church and my commitment to live the gospel is not conditional on them being so.

[canard78]

No points, so "well said".

Repped on your behalf (and mine too actually)

[jwhitlock]

To claim that those with a different perspective than yours are less able to understand truth is amazingly audacious. Especially with respect to something that you claim is not a foundational truth and an issue you don't even consider worth arguing about.

Not even close to what I said. There seems to be a penchant on this thread for misrepresenting me.

So, JDave, how does my statement that skepticism reduces understanding translate to the more generalized (and false) "those with a different perspective than yours are less able to understand"?

And where did I say it wasn't worth arguing about? I corrected canard when he made that same misrepresentation, about what I said, and now he's only too willing to give you a rep point for further parroting that misrepresentation.

Nice straw man there.

[jwhitlock]

No points, so "well said".

Nope again.

Well, cal, you seem to be rather inconsistent here. You chide why me about misrepresenting canard, and yet when he and others do the exact same thing to me, you praise them and give them rep points.

How wonderful.

[Calm]

Nope again.

Well, cal, you seem to be rather inconsistent here. You chide why me about misrepresenting canard, and yet when he and others do the exact same thing to me, you praise them and give them rep points.

How wonderful.

Not inconsistent, just dense...I don't see how they are misrepresenting what you have said...though I have no doubt that you believe they are and they may well be, we all may be misreading you...or perhaps you weren't clear in what you said.

[jwhitlock]

In one post you say: "I don't find the flood issue worth arguing about "? But in another you say: "...you have absolute evidence that there was no flood. Please do provide that evidence." So you don't want to argue about the flood, but you say I have no evidence there was no flood and ask me to provide evidence. Please choose one. If you do want to argue about the flood then start a new thread and I'll join you. My first mention of the flood was no to open a debate but as a sarcastic quip to Cinepro. I didn't introduce the flood to debate it but I don't mind doing so if you actually want to (on another thread).

Taking my quote out of context, when I joined it with " I don't base any part of my faith on any particular interpretation of what might have happened" is misrepresenting me. And then posting that I wanted to turn this thread into a debate about the flood when you initiated that tangent and then provided arguments about your perspective was also a misrepresentation.

Then again, some of the others on this thread don't seem to have a problem with that, so evidently there are some who approve of at least your use of that methodology.

1 and 2 are essential. They are the foundation. A belief in God and a testimony of Christ is the 'chief cornerstone' of my faith.

3 is also important, though the nature of what 'prophet' and 'calling' means has changed, for me.

4 and 5 are not essential. We have the printed Book of Mormon. Living its principles (like you said at the top) is evidence enough that the origins are divine. Whether there were real plates which contains the writings of an historical Nephi and Mormon, given to Joseph by a real Moroni is not essential. I hope they are real as I'd like to meet them some day. But my participation in the church and my commitment to live the gospel is not conditional on them being so.

Four and five are indeed essential. While Christ is the cornerstone, the Book of Mormon is the keystone. There are certain aspects of the Book of Mormon that are essential attributes pertaining to it's claim as scripture and those include items four and five. Other aspects such as location and geography are unclear and open to opinion and not essential, but part of the truth claim of the book is contained in the simple, essential facts that gold plates of ancient origin existed, Joseph Smith possessed them, and the text of the Book of Mormon was contained in those plates. Note that I'm not claiming that the translated text is inerrant or without Joseph's cultural (but not imaginitive) influence, but essentially if you had someone who could read both the plates and the Book of Mormon, it would be clear that the plates were the source of the BofM.

Both of those points are essential because they have been consistently taught by the church and its leaders since the beginning. No other alternative or option has ever been, to my knowledge, given as a possibility by the church or its leaders. As such, they stand as essential attributes of what the Book of Mormon really is. It isn't just an inspired set of principles, or something that may have been partly revelation and partly philosophy from Joseph, or outright fiction, or whatever else people want to do to explain it.

Why is that important? Because the Book of Mormon is not just principles to live by. It's much more than that. It contains revealed truth pertaining to events that will lead to the Second Coming of Christ - another essential, foundational truth claim. Numbers four and five are essential because they can be used to test what the Book really is - not some watered down book of wonderful or possibly inspired principles, but a Book of scripture given in a specific way from a specific source containing important information for us in addition to principles to guide us.

So it's important to recognize simple foundational truth claims that are non-negotiable and recognize that they are there in order for us to set the proper foundation for understanding the what the restored gospel is all about. When we dismiss those claims, we start to move over to a fairly sandy foundation that is ever shifting as the philosophies of men change.

[jwhitlock]

Not inconsistent, just dense...I don't see how they are misrepresenting what you have said...though I have no doubt that you believe they are and they may well be, we all may be misreading you...or perhaps you weren't clear in what you said.

Well, since I was rather clear in explaining myself and specifically what was misrepresented, all I can say is that you'll need to go back and re-read my posts again to figure it out.

[canard78]

Four and five are indeed essential. While Christ is the cornerstone, the Book of Mormon is the keystone.

They're essential to you. I've no problem with that. The Book of Mormon is also my keystone. But not because of its historical origins. Because applying the principles in the book works.

There are certain aspects of the Book of Mormon that are essential attributes pertaining to it's claim as scripture and those include items four and five. Other aspects such as location and geography are unclear and open to opinion and not essential, but part of the truth claim of the book is contained in the simple, essential facts that gold plates of ancient origin existed, Joseph Smith possessed them, and the text of the Book of Mormon was contained in those plates. Note that I'm not claiming that the translated text is inerrant or without Joseph's cultural (but not imaginitive) influence, but essentially if you had someone who could read both the plates and the Book of Mormon, it would be clear that the plates were the source of the BofM.

Both of those points are essential because they have been consistently taught by the church and its leaders since the beginning. No other alternative or option has ever been, to my knowledge, given as a possibility by the church or its leaders. As such, they stand as essential attributes of what the Book of Mormon really is. It isn't just an inspired set of principles, or something that may have been partly revelation and partly philosophy from Joseph, or outright fiction, or whatever else people want to do to explain it.

Why is that important? Because the Book of Mormon is not just principles to live by. It's much more than that. It contains revealed truth pertaining to events that will lead to the Second Coming of Christ - another essential, foundational truth claim. Numbers four and five are essential because they can be used to test what the Book really is - not some watered down book of wonderful or possibly inspired principles, but a Book of scripture given in a specific way from a specific source containing important information for us in addition to principles to guide us.

So it's important to recognize simple foundational truth claims that are non-negotiable and recognize that they are there in order for us to set the proper foundation for understanding the what the restored gospel is all about. When we dismiss those claims, we start to move over to a fairly sandy foundation that is ever shifting as the philosophies of men change.

I'm fine with people taking an absolute and literal view. I'm also saying that this isn't a requirement for the gospel to be effective.

[strappinglad]

Living the principles found in the Book of Mormon is essential to ones salvation. Accepting the concept that the Nephites were real people and that the plates were actual documents from those people is essential to the truth claims of the Church.

[JDave]

Not even close to what I said. There seems to be a penchant on this thread for misrepresenting me.

I truly doubt it is done out of malice.

So, JDave, how does my statement that skepticism reduces understanding translate to the more generalized (and false) "those with a different perspective than yours are less able to understand"?

One man's skepticism may be another man's belief. It isn't always as simple as "I doubt that". You seem to be skeptical of a local flood.

The assumption that skepticism is inherently debilitating is also troublesome. While doubts can at times limit our ability to understand, I believe it depends on how the individual works with those doubts. Is the individual choosing to shut out spirituality because of their doubts, or are they trying to process their doubts within the framework of the gospel and seeking help through the Spirit. That is simply a different perspective.

And where did I say it wasn't worth arguing about? I corrected canard when he made that same misrepresentation, about what I said, and now he's only too willing to give you a rep point for further parroting that misrepresentation.

You were pretty clear, I thought. I was scratching my head when you told canard78 he was misrepresenting you.

Personally, I don't find the flood issue worth arguing about and I don't base any part of my faith on any particular interpretation of what might have happened.

Edited August 4, 2013 by JDave

[jwhitlock]

I truly doubt it is done out of malice.

Rephrasing something to change its meaning, or taking things out of context is hardly benign.

One man's skepticism may be another man's belief. It isn't always as simple as "I doubt that". You seem to be skeptical of a local flood.

The assumption that skepticism is inherently debilitating is also troublesome. While doubts can at times limit our ability to understand, I believe it depends on how the individual works with those doubts. Is the individual choosing to shut out spirituality because of their doubts, or are they trying to process their doubts within the framework of the gospel and seeking help through the Spirit. That is simply a different perspective.

Since I was talking about chronic skepticism (as is made clear by reading the whole sentence where I made that remark), you're now taking me out of context and trying to justify your rephrasing of what I said.

Here's my entire sentence: "Unfettered with skeptical doubts, I can now try to understand what the story of the flood really means, while those driven by their doubts effectively bar themselves from coming to an understanding of the truth.

Context makes quite a bit of difference, doesn't it. I'm not talking about just a different perspective; I'm talking about how chronic skepticism hinders our ability to understand truth. Maybe instead of continually trying to misrepresent me you can accurately address what I said. That would be more honest and more productive since chronic skepticism has a direct bearing on the OP and the evidences provided in support of the essential truth claims of the church.

You were pretty clear, I thought. I was scratching my head when you told canard78 he was misrepresenting you.

Again, as I have explained, canard was misrepresenting me by taking one phrase out of my sentence and accusing me of being the one turning this into a debate about the flood, when he was the one doing so. At least you had the decency this time to quote the whole sentence, though it seems to continue to escape both you and your audience of rep point groupies how the second part of my sentence in that context makes a difference as to why I was responding.

Chronic skeptics (and now I have to qualify it so I don't get misrepresented) tend to dismiss essential truth claims and evidences for the church as unnecessary, as was shown by canard's dismissal of essential attributes of the Book of Mormon as unnecessary to our faith. The Lord specifically sourced it from the plates for a reason; He could have just as easily given the BofM to Joseph via straight revelation without any plates, but the plates were there for a purpose. They're an essential part of what the Book of Mormon is. It's necessary to accept that in order to truly understand what the Book of Mormon is all about. Canard wants to water down the Book of Mormon as he tries to "make sense" of it and reduce it to something possibly inspired with good principles to live by. Doing so effectively waters down or eliminates the essential prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and reduces him to philosopher status, or someone with good ideas and intent. Understanding that the Book of Mormon came from actual plates that Joseph physically was given by an angel shuts the door on all that nonsense and gives us the proper foundation of essential truth claims on which we can understand what the Book of Mormon and the restored gospel are really all about.

Chronic skepticism is not just another perspective. It hinders understanding and removes foundational evidences necessary to that understanding. Those with the proper understanding and foundation of knowing essential claims are true can then more effectively evaluate other claimed evidences for the restored gospel and determine if and how they fit in. A skeptic will simply dismiss them all and so will miss the boat of understanding entirely.

There are certain things that are consistently presented in the church as absolutes. The origin of the Book of Mormon is one of them. That makes it an essential truth claim and something to pay attention to instead of dismissing it as unnecessary to our understanding and faith.