churchistrue Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 Some of you might have listened to the four hour interview with John Dehlin on Mormon Stories. I wrote up a summary with the key points of the article, addressing this "metaphorical" take on Mormonism. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/greg-prince-on-new-mormonism/ The gist of what Prince is saying is that he believes Joseph had a powerful experience with the divine. And that he had a gift/inspiration in how to share that experience with his followers through a set of symbols: ie Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, priesthood doctrine, etc. None of this should be taken literally, or at least we shouldn't fret about whether or not portions of this can be proven "false" in the literal, historical record. They key is what it does for people that read the scripture and follow the religion. Early criticism of this, is that this view is untenable within Mormonism. The brethren will never go for it. Even if they did, everyone would lose their testimony and leave the church. This brand of Mormonism doesn't have any "staying power". Nothing to convince people it's good to stay and engage with the church. I disagree. This is how I approach the church, and it works for me. Thoughts?
Popular Post The Nehor Posted October 10, 2016 Popular Post Posted October 10, 2016 I would leave. I enjoy metaphor and myth as much or more then your average person but I am unwilling to sacrifice what the gospel asks for if it is metaphor and myth. Now if it is a myth that actually happened....that I can get behind. 6
rockpond Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 13 minutes ago, churchistrue said: Some of you might have listened to the four hour interview with John Dehlin on Mormon Stories. I wrote up a summary with the key points of the article, addressing this "metaphorical" take on Mormonism. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/greg-prince-on-new-mormonism/ The gist of what Prince is saying is that he believes Joseph had a powerful experience with the divine. And that he had a gift/inspiration in how to share that experience with his followers through a set of symbols: ie Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, priesthood doctrine, etc. None of this should be taken literally, or at least we shouldn't fret about whether or not portions of this can be proven "false" in the literal, historical record. They key is what it does for people that read the scripture and follow the religion. Early criticism of this, is that this view is untenable within Mormonism. The brethren will never go for it. Even if they did, everyone would lose their testimony and leave the church. This brand of Mormonism doesn't have any "staying power". Nothing to convince people it's good to stay and engage with the church. I disagree. This is how I approach the church, and it works for me. Thoughts? It was a great interview although part three is an intellectually challenging discussion. It's always interesting when Dehlin has to be the one to argue in favor of the orthodox Mormon positions. I think that Prince is laying out a framework for the church to move forward. It seems untenable now but so does the church's current position. It's a long, long play and I think that's what Prince is getting at. 3
cdowis Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 (edited) 40 minutes ago, churchistrue said: This is how I approach the church, and it works for me. Thoughts? One tiny question, how do you deal with the eight witnesses == were they also just fragments of JS imagination, just metaphors? Or did they actually exist in reality. Goes back to the classical question, am I a man dreaming of a butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a man. I just love such philosophical nonsense. But I guess it works for you. Edited October 10, 2016 by cdowis 2
churchistrue Posted October 10, 2016 Author Posted October 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, cdowis said: One tiny question, how do you deal with the eight witnesses == were they also just fragments of JS imagination, just metaphors? Or did they actually exist in reality. Goes back to the classical question, am I a man dreaming of a butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a man. I just love such philosophical nonsense. But I guess it works for you. There are many threads where BOM historicity is argued. I don't care to get into that. The question I have here, is whether this metaphorical version can work for people who can't get on board with historicity. 1
hope_for_things Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 49 minutes ago, churchistrue said: Some of you might have listened to the four hour interview with John Dehlin on Mormon Stories. I wrote up a summary with the key points of the article, addressing this "metaphorical" take on Mormonism. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/greg-prince-on-new-mormonism/ The gist of what Prince is saying is that he believes Joseph had a powerful experience with the divine. And that he had a gift/inspiration in how to share that experience with his followers through a set of symbols: ie Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, priesthood doctrine, etc. None of this should be taken literally, or at least we shouldn't fret about whether or not portions of this can be proven "false" in the literal, historical record. They key is what it does for people that read the scripture and follow the religion. Early criticism of this, is that this view is untenable within Mormonism. The brethren will never go for it. Even if they did, everyone would lose their testimony and leave the church. This brand of Mormonism doesn't have any "staying power". Nothing to convince people it's good to stay and engage with the church. I disagree. This is how I approach the church, and it works for me. Thoughts? Great interview. I think Prince's positions get are about as close to how I would try to model a set of beliefs and still stay engaged in the church as you can get. I so much appreciate his work. For me personally, I'm at a position where I question the efficacy active participation inside the church community. I'm trying to find a paradigm that works in my everyday life, that inspires me to be better, but that doesn't carry a lot of negative baggage. I see the bad within the church much more clearly now, but I also see so much good. At times I feel called to do more, so we'll just have to wait and see, but for now, I feel called to show that inactivity does not lead to a moral decay. That is what I'm trying to model for my family and friends, a moral and ethical life outside active Mormonism. So many false narratives out there about those that leave the fold. 3
cdowis Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, churchistrue said: There are many threads where BOM historicity is argued. I don't care to get into that. The question I have here, is whether this metaphorical version can work for people who can't get on board with historicity. Of course anyone can be satisfied that the BOM is simply inspirational fiction, such as "Pilgrim's Progress" or "The Chronicles of Narnia". Not scripture, no prophet author, but uplifting. That is the dividing line between the terrestrial and the celestial kingdom. Edited October 10, 2016 by cdowis 1
rockpond Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 30 minutes ago, cdowis said: One tiny question, how do you deal with the eight witnesses == were they also just fragments of JS imagination, just metaphors? Or did they actually exist in reality. Goes back to the classical question, am I a man dreaming of a butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a man. I just love such philosophical nonsense. But I guess it works for you. Prince does address that... I believe it's in Part 3.
cdowis Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: Prince does address that... I believe it's in Part 3. That's nice. And when he comes here to this forum, or someone chooses to give his defense, I will then respond. I don't chase down rabbit holes. Edited October 10, 2016 by cdowis
rockpond Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, cdowis said: That's nice. And when he comes here to this forum, or someone chooses to give his defense, I will then respond. I don't chase down rabbit holes. No one asked you to. But it is a thread on his podcast, so listening to it makes for a better discussion. 1
churchistrue Posted October 10, 2016 Author Posted October 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: No one asked you to. But it is a thread on his podcast, so listening to it makes for a better discussion. I mention that part in my write up as well. Prince doesn't preclude the possibility of real golden plates, either delivered by an angel or materialized like in an Ann Taves way. He doesn't get into the details of why he doesn't believe the BOM isn't historical, but alludes to DNA and other scientific/historical issues like that. 1
Popular Post smac97 Posted October 10, 2016 Popular Post Posted October 10, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, churchistrue said: Some of you might have listened to the four hour interview with John Dehlin on Mormon Stories. I wrote up a summary with the key points of the article, addressing this "metaphorical" take on Mormonism. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/greg-prince-on-new-mormonism/ The gist of what Prince is saying is that he believes Joseph had a powerful experience with the divine. And that he had a gift/inspiration in how to share that experience with his followers through a set of symbols: ie Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, priesthood doctrine, etc. None of this should be taken literally, or at least we shouldn't fret about whether or not portions of this can be proven "false" in the literal, historical record. They key is what it does for people that read the scripture and follow the religion. Early criticism of this, is that this view is untenable within Mormonism. The brethren will never go for it. Even if they did, everyone would lose their testimony and leave the church. This brand of Mormonism doesn't have any "staying power". Nothing to convince people it's good to stay and engage with the church. I disagree. This is how I approach the church, and it works for me. Thoughts? Prince's assessment of the historicity issue sounds perfunctory, even lazy. He says: Quote There were other religious figures at the time who were having similar visionary experiences. But they didn’t launch these organizations that have endured. His genius was his ability to put together a set of symbols that allowed the believers to have access to that vision. Period. That’s how I would sum up Mormonism. …Those symbols can be statements of belief. They can be visual symbols. They can be canon, they can be whatever. We stumble over those things when they don’t exactly comport to the worldview that we have formulated. People get absolutely unglued if they perceive any threat to a non-historical Book of Mormon…It’s a hill they’re willing to die on. And I’m sitting there thinking that’s a stupid battle; you missed the whole point. "{T]hat's a stupid battle?" "{Y}ou missed the whole point? That's his assessment? I am fine with people presenting reasoned arguments against historicity. But it sounds like he is not even attempting to address the issue of historicity and why so many deem it to be an important, even essential, component of LDS belief. Instead, he dismisses the entire issue as "stupid" and people who disagree with him about it as having "missed the whole point." Consider these remarks by Elder Oaks (emphasis added): Quote "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 is, to me, a very cogent argument. If historicity is as inconsequential as Prince wants us to believe, then how far does he go with that reasoning? Are people who feel a need to have faith in a historical (as opposed to a fictional/fabricated) Jesus Christ fighting a "stupid battle?" Have they "missed the whole point?" I don't think so. I concede that there are true and correct principles to be found in stories that do not need to be historically authentic to have value. For example, the historicity of a particular parable spoken by Christ is, I think, largely immaterial to its spiritual/moral value. However, the historicity of the existence of Christ is a markedly different issue. If Christ never existed, then belief in Him has no salvific power. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" has no meaning or relevance. In fact, it is a lie and a fraud which must be affirmatively rejected if there is no historicity underlying it. I think the same must be said for The Book of Mormon. 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, in my view, 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." A fictional Jesus Christ does not work as pertaining to our salvation, nor does a fictional Book of Mormon. Does Prince attempt to address the apparent foundational importance of historicity regarding The Book of Mormon? Does he attempt to address the points and arguments re: historicity which have been raised by various scholars, including those published in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures? Does he address the substantial flaws and errors in the "Inspired Fiction" school of thought? No, no and no. Back to Prince: Quote When the Hans Mattson story broke in the New York Times,… it elicited a letter to the editor about three days later from Harold Kushner, the Jewish Rabbi who wrote the book “Why Bad Things Happen to Good People” …he said, “I have read the story of Hans Mattson, and I would hope that the Mormons could learn from the Jewish experience of distinguishing literal scripture from allegorical scripture.” And he was right, but we don’t get. The class average among Mormons is it’s all literal and that’s only going to get you into a mess, that you never get out of. It’s time to grow up. He has reduced huge swaths of studied and thoughtful LDS belief to "it's all literal," that Mormons cannot or will not distinguish "literal scripture from allegorical scripture." That's absurd. He is creating a caricature of the historicity position. A straw man. He is foisting an unreasoned, all-or-nothing, hyper-literalist position onto people who disagree with him in order to make them sound ignorant and unreasonable. I find this disappointing. I would have expected more from a person of his intellect and stature. Back to him. Quote To me the paradigm of the Book of Mormon that has been mostly neglected is “don’t focus so much on what you think it is; focus on what it has done.” "What it {The Book of Mormon} has done" is declared itself to be a real ancient record describing real people and real events and real miracles. I think these remarks from Kent Jackson merit some attention (from the same source as above): Quote In his article "Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon," Kent P. Jackson asks, "what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?" He goes on: "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?" (pp. 137-38) Until and unless people like Prince begin to seriously engage and address the issues raised by Kent Jackson, Elder Oaks, Daniel Peterson, Jack Welch, and a host of others (instead of blithely dismissing their perspective as, in Prince's words, "stupid" and "miss{ing} the whole point"), I'm not going to devote much effort to taking them seriously. Back to Prince: Quote …Since that book came into being, regardless of what it is or how it came into being, it has done something that probably only two other books have done, the Bible and the Quran. And that is that it facilitates that encounter between the finite and the infinite. It gets back to what I said earlier. If you are a religious leader you have to have the vision, but then you have to make that vision accessible to your believers. He gave them that tangible access through the Book Mormon. That was his very first symbol that he handed to them….they took this book, people read that book, and something happened to them that changed their lives…There’s this ferocious fight between the literalists and the non-literalists over the book of Mormon…I just want to say “time out guys. Back off a bit and look at that book for what it does. And then answer the question, so how does it do that?” The Book of Mormon inspires faith in Jesus Christ. Not a metaphorical Christ. Not an admirable-but-fictional Christ. Not a self-help-guru-in-ancient-Jerusalem Christ. A real, actual Jesus Christ. The literal Son of God. Who was really, actually born and grew up, who taught vital truths pertaining to God and man's relationship with Him, who had power over the elements, who performed miracle after miracle, who atoned for our sins, who was condemned and tortured and killed, who was physically resurrected in glorified form, who conquered death, who is the source of truth and light and salvation. And how does The Book of Mormon "do that?" By being the "keystone of our religion." By being the catalyst through which spiritual impressions about important truths can come. By "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations." By being evidence, a second witness of Jesus Christ, and also evidence of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling. By having evidence of its historicity presented front and center for nearly two hundred years (the text itself, the Three Witnesses, the Eight Witnesses, etc.). Prince's reasoning eviscerates all of this. If we can dismiss The Book of Mormon as a fable with some nice moral axioms, then we can likewise dismiss Christ as merely a rabbi from thousands of years ago who had some thoughtful things to say. Prince's reasoning is to reduce Jesus Christ to the level of Anthony Robbins, or Atticus Finch, or Captain America, and The Book of Mormon to the level of Awaken the Giant Within, or To Kill a Mockingbird, or a series of comic books. No thanks. Back to Prince: Quote I don’t see it is an ancient history. I can respect that position. Quote I just don’t see that it has a leg to stand on as being history. I have a harder time respecting this position. There are huge swaths of scholarship about The Book of Mormon. Scholarship that engages the text for what it claims to be. Scholarship that is the result of years of study and thought and analysis by many different people who are well-versed in relevant fields. Scholarship by people who are extremely familiar with the actual text of The Book of Mormon (as opposed to, say, the embarrassing stuff we've seen from otherwise well-credentialed scholars like Michael Coe). Quote I’ve heard of hybrid explanations. None of them carry any water with me. "I've heard of..." That's it? Quote I’m content to go with what Denise Hopkins the Professor of Hebrew Bible told me. It’s a book length midrash on the Bible. And I’m fine with that. Denise Hopkins is a Professor of Biblical Theology at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C. As far as I can see, she has no experience or expertise with The Book of Mormon. At all. She has apparently never published any scholarship about it (I am open to correction on this point). So what, precisely, is this bit of name-dropping supposed to prove? Sounds like a classic fallacious Appeal to Authority: Quote An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true. This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious. I am glad that you are able to make the "Inspired Fiction" concept work for you. I really am. As I have said previously, I would much rather have you in the Church and rejecting the historicity of The Book of Mormon than out of the Church. I would also extend to you every measure of friendship and fellowship. However, I have also said this: Quote 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. This is why I respond to pretty much every thread which appears to be evangelizing the "Inspired Fiction" line of thought. I don't think it's a benign approach to the truth claims of the LDS Church. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 10, 2016 by smac97 8
Atheist Mormon Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 47 minutes ago, cdowis said: One tiny question, how do you deal with the eight witnesses == This is the easiest to refute and discharge among the evidences. 1
hope_for_things Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 1 hour ago, churchistrue said: Some of you might have listened to the four hour interview with John Dehlin on Mormon Stories. I wrote up a summary with the key points of the article, addressing this "metaphorical" take on Mormonism. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/greg-prince-on-new-mormonism/ Ok, great blog post, I have a few questions. Quote JD: Then what does a person who has faith get that the person who doesn’t have faith doesn’t? GP: I think it’s the internal peace and somehow that communion with the infinite that transcends whatever mortality brings to us it’s that transcendent state. Can't a person without faith in the divine also have internal peace? Can't a non-believing personal also have communion with the infinite and a transcendent state? I would argue that these things aren't exclusive to religious faith. Quote That’s a very interesting line. “not realizing biblical scholarship would take the entire field to a higher and much firmer plateau.” This is where I see New Mormonism taking the church. I really liked this line as well. A very good podcast I recently listened to on Radio West with the author John Shelby Spong talking about his new book on biblical literalism. I highly recommend this. http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/biblical-literalism Quote That needs to be articulated, to address the question “OK, I understand this, but why should I stay?” That is essentially my question today. Why should I stay. I can add value to the church, yes, but there are negatives as well. Its a cost/benefit question for me. Do the benefits outweigh the costs today? If we had a couple Greg Prince's in my home ward, that would help a lot! :-)
rockpond Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 22 minutes ago, smac97 said: Prince's assessment of the historicity issue sounds perfunctory, even lazy. He says: "{T]hat's a stupid battle?" "{Y}ou missed the whole point? That's his assessment? I am fine with people presenting reasoned arguments against historicity. But it sounds like he is not even attempting to address the issue of historicity and why so many deem it to be an important, even essential, component of LDS belief. Instead, he dismisses the entire issue as "stupid" and people who disagree with him about it as having "missed the whole point." Consider these remarks by Elder Oaks (emphasis added): That is, to me, a very cogent argument. If historicity is as inconsequential as Prince wants us to believe, then how far does he go with that reasoning? Are people who feel a need to have faith in a historical (as opposed to a fictional/fabricated) Jesus Christ fighting a "stupid battle?" Have they "missed the whole point?" I don't think so. I concede that there are true and correct principles to be found in stories that do not need to be historically authentic to have value. For example, the historicity of a particular parable spoken by Christ is, I think, largely immaterial to its spiritual/moral value. However, the historicity of the existence of Christ is a markedly different issue. If Christ never existed, then belief in Him has no salvific power. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" has no meaning or relevance. In fact, it is a lie and a fraud which must be affirmatively rejected if there is no historicity underlying it. I think the same must be said for The Book of Mormon. 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, in my view, 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." A fictional Jesus Christ does not work as pertaining to our salvation, nor does a fictional Book of Mormon. Does Prince attempt to address the apparent foundational importance of historicity regarding The Book of Mormon? Does he attempt to address the points and arguments re: historicity which have been raised by various scholars, including those published in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures? Does he address the substantial flaws and errors in the "Inspired Fiction" school of thought? No, no and no. Back to Prince: He has reduced huge swaths of studied and thoughtful LDS belief to "it's all literal," that Mormons cannot or will not distinguish "literal scripture from allegorical scripture." That's absurd. He is creating a caricature of the historicity position. A straw man. He is foisting an unreasoned, all-or-nothing, hyper-literalist position onto people who disagree with him in order to make them sound ignorant and unreasonable. I find this disappointing. I would have expected more from a person of his intellect and stature. Back to him. "What it {The Book of Mormon} has done" is declared itself to be a real ancient record describing real people and real events and real miracles. I think these remarks from Kent Jackson merit some attention (from the same source as above): Until and unless people like Prince begin to seriously engage and address the issues raised by Kent Jackson, Elder Oaks, Daniel Peterson, Jack Welch, and a host of others (instead of blithely dismissing their perspective as, in Prince's words, "stupid" and "miss{ing} the whole point"), I'm not going to devote much effort to taking them seriously. Back to Prince: The Book of Mormon inspires faith in Jesus Christ. Not a metaphorical Christ. Not an admirable-but-fictional Christ. Not a self-help-guru-in-ancient-Jerusalem Christ. A real, actual Jesus Christ. The literal Son of God. Who was really, actually born and grew up, who taught vital truths pertaining to God and man's relationship with Him, who had power over the elements, who performed miracle after miracle, who atoned for our sins, who was condemned and tortured and killed, who was physically resurrected in glorified form, who conquered death, who is the source of truth and light and salvation. And how does The Book of Mormon "do that?" By being the "keystone of our religion." By being the catalyst through which spiritual impressions about important truths can come. By "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations." By being evidence, a second witness of Jesus Christ, and also evidence of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling. By having evidence of its historicity presented front and center for nearly two hundred years (the text itself, the Three Witnesses, the Eight Witnesses, etc.). Prince's reasoning eviscerates all of this. If we can dismiss The Book of Mormon as a fable with some nice moral axioms, then we can likewise dismiss Christ as merely a rabbi from thousands of years ago who had some thoughtful things to say. Prince's reasoning is to reduce Jesus Christ to the level of Anthony Robbins, or Atticus Finch, or Captain America, and The Book of Mormon to the level of Awaken the Giant Within, or To Kill a Mockingbird, or a series of comic books. No thanks. Back to Prince: I can respect that position. I have a harder time respecting this position. There are huge swaths of scholarship about The Book of Mormon. Scholarship that engages the text for what it claims to be. Scholarship that is the result of years of study and thought and analysis by many different people who are well-versed in relevant fields. Scholarship by people who are extremely familiar with the actual text of The Book of Mormon (as opposed to, say, the embarrassing stuff we've seen from otherwise well-credentialed scholars like Michael Coe). "I've heard of..." That's it? Denise Hopkins is a Professor of Biblical Theology at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C. As far as I can see, she has no experience or expertise with The Book of Mormon. At all. She has apparently never published any scholarship about it (I am open to correction on this point). So what, precisely, is this bit of name-dropping supposed to prove? Sounds like a classic fallacious Appeal to Authority: I am glad that you are able to make the "Inspired Fiction" concept work for you. I really am. As I have said previously, I would much rather have you in the Church and rejecting the historicity of The Book of Mormon than out of the Church. I would also extend to you every measure of friendship and fellowship. However, I have also said this: This is why I respond to pretty much every thread which appears to be evangelizing the "Inspired Fiction" line of thought. I don't think it's a benign approach to the truth claims of the LDS Church. Thanks, -Smac Prince is perfunctory? Lazy? That's really an off-the-mark assessment. Look at the guy's bio. Having listened to all four hours of the pocast, I believe that Prince's response to you would be that if the literal belief in Book of Mormon historicity works for you, go with it. He was speaking to those who can no longer make the historical viewpoint work. But he also, throughout the podcast, is arguing for a position wherein faith is something that transcends a list of belief statements and should not be rooted in whether scripture is literal, allegorical, historical, etc. I think that is what he's saying when he refers to missing the point. 2
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 2 hours ago, churchistrue said: Some of you might have listened to the four hour interview with John Dehlin on Mormon Stories. I wrote up a summary with the key points of the article, addressing this "metaphorical" take on Mormonism. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/greg-prince-on-new-mormonism/ The gist of what Prince is saying is that he believes Joseph had a powerful experience with the divine. And that he had a gift/inspiration in how to share that experience with his followers through a set of symbols: ie Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, priesthood doctrine, etc. None of this should be taken literally, or at least we shouldn't fret about whether or not portions of this can be proven "false" in the literal, historical record. They key is what it does for people that read the scripture and follow the religion. Early criticism of this, is that this view is untenable within Mormonism. The brethren will never go for it. Even if they did, everyone would lose their testimony and leave the church. This brand of Mormonism doesn't have any "staying power". Nothing to convince people it's good to stay and engage with the church. I disagree. This is how I approach the church, and it works for me. Thoughts? There is no problem with this view. BUT: It is as impossible to show that this view is true as it is to show the literalist view is true!!! To me, it is either/ or or both! A truth that makes no difference in our lives is no truth at all. Our behaviors and feelings on this matter are identically the same whether we believe it is literal or believe it is metaphorical, - neither can be "proven". It is the BELIEF that matters in our lives All I KNOW for sure is that I have had a testimony telling me the "church is true" I have essentially held this view for my 37 year membership and have held many callings and am now a temple ordinance worker. All that is said in the little blurb below my avatar if people understand it. The church is true, and the only way any of it can be "proven" is by testimony which is a subjective, private experience. Either you have had it or you haven't. It's that simple. I would like to see anyone "prove" it is all "literal" OR it is all "metaphorical" It can't be done. 2
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 (edited) 33 minutes ago, smac97 said: Prince's assessment of the historicity issue sounds perfunctory, even lazy. He says: "{T]hat's a stupid battle?" "{Y}ou missed the whole point? That's his assessment? I am fine with people presenting reasoned arguments against historicity. But it sounds like he is not even attempting to address the issue of historicity and why so many deem it to be an important, even essential, component of LDS belief. Instead, he dismisses the entire issue as "stupid" and people who disagree with him about it as having "missed the whole point." Consider these remarks by Elder Oaks (emphasis added): That is, to me, a very cogent argument. If historicity is as inconsequential as Prince wants us to believe, then how far does he go with that reasoning? Are people who feel a need to have faith in a historical (as opposed to a fictional/fabricated) Jesus Christ fighting a "stupid battle?" Have they "missed the whole point?" I don't think so. I concede that there are true and correct principles to be found in stories that do not need to be historically authentic to have value. For example, the historicity of a particular parable spoken by Christ is, I think, largely immaterial to its spiritual/moral value. However, the historicity of the existence of Christ is a markedly different issue. If Christ never existed, then belief in Him has no salvific power. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" has no meaning or relevance. In fact, it is a lie and a fraud which must be affirmatively rejected if there is no historicity underlying it. I think the same must be said for The Book of Mormon. 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, in my view, 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." A fictional Jesus Christ does not work as pertaining to our salvation, nor does a fictional Book of Mormon. Does Prince attempt to address the apparent foundational importance of historicity regarding The Book of Mormon? Does he attempt to address the points and arguments re: historicity which have been raised by various scholars, including those published in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures? Does he address the substantial flaws and errors in the "Inspired Fiction" school of thought? No, no and no. Back to Prince: He has reduced huge swaths of studied and thoughtful LDS belief to "it's all literal," that Mormons cannot or will not distinguish "literal scripture from allegorical scripture." That's absurd. He is creating a caricature of the historicity position. A straw man. He is foisting an unreasoned, all-or-nothing, hyper-literalist position onto people who disagree with him in order to make them sound ignorant and unreasonable. I find this disappointing. I would have expected more from a person of his intellect and stature. Back to him. "What it {The Book of Mormon} has done" is declared itself to be a real ancient record describing real people and real events and real miracles. I think these remarks from Kent Jackson merit some attention (from the same source as above): Until and unless people like Prince begin to seriously engage and address the issues raised by Kent Jackson, Elder Oaks, Daniel Peterson, Jack Welch, and a host of others (instead of blithely dismissing their perspective as, in Prince's words, "stupid" and "miss{ing} the whole point"), I'm not going to devote much effort to taking them seriously. Back to Prince: The Book of Mormon inspires faith in Jesus Christ. Not a metaphorical Christ. Not an admirable-but-fictional Christ. Not a self-help-guru-in-ancient-Jerusalem Christ. A real, actual Jesus Christ. The literal Son of God. Who was really, actually born and grew up, who taught vital truths pertaining to God and man's relationship with Him, who had power over the elements, who performed miracle after miracle, who atoned for our sins, who was condemned and tortured and killed, who was physically resurrected in glorified form, who conquered death, who is the source of truth and light and salvation. And how does The Book of Mormon "do that?" By being the "keystone of our religion." By being the catalyst through which spiritual impressions about important truths can come. By "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations." By being evidence, a second witness of Jesus Christ, and also evidence of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling. By having evidence of its historicity presented front and center for nearly two hundred years (the text itself, the Three Witnesses, the Eight Witnesses, etc.). Prince's reasoning eviscerates all of this. If we can dismiss The Book of Mormon as a fable with some nice moral axioms, then we can likewise dismiss Christ as merely a rabbi from thousands of years ago who had some thoughtful things to say. Prince's reasoning is to reduce Jesus Christ to the level of Anthony Robbins, or Atticus Finch, or Captain America, and The Book of Mormon to the level of Awaken the Giant Within, or To Kill a Mockingbird, or a series of comic books. No thanks. Back to Prince: I can respect that position. I have a harder time respecting this position. There are huge swaths of scholarship about The Book of Mormon. Scholarship that engages the text for what it claims to be. Scholarship that is the result of years of study and thought and analysis by many different people who are well-versed in relevant fields. Scholarship by people who are extremely familiar with the actual text of The Book of Mormon (as opposed to, say, the embarrassing stuff we've seen from otherwise well-credentialed scholars like Michael Coe). "I've heard of..." That's it? Denise Hopkins is a Professor of Biblical Theology at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C. As far as I can see, she has no experience or expertise with The Book of Mormon. At all. She has apparently never published any scholarship about it (I am open to correction on this point). So what, precisely, is this bit of name-dropping supposed to prove? Sounds like a classic fallacious Appeal to Authority: I am glad that you are able to make the "Inspired Fiction" concept work for you. I really am. As I have said previously, I would much rather have you in the Church and rejecting the historicity of The Book of Mormon than out of the Church. I would also extend to you every measure of friendship and fellowship. However, I have also said this: This is why I respond to pretty much every thread which appears to be evangelizing the "Inspired Fiction" line of thought. I don't think it's a benign approach to the truth claims of the LDS Church. Thanks, -Smac What is a "truth claim" and how do you define it? Based upon what theory of truth? Correspondence? Coherence? Evidential? Belief in historicity is based on faith. It is itself a religious belief! Honestly for your statement to stand up to serious scrutiny you need to back it up with an answer to that. But that's ok Nobody else does either!. Edited October 10, 2016 by mfbukowski
churchistrue Posted October 10, 2016 Author Posted October 10, 2016 10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Ok, great blog post, I have a few questions. Can't a person without faith in the divine also have internal peace? Can't a non-believing personal also have communion with the infinite and a transcendent state? I would argue that these things aren't exclusive to religious faith. I really liked this line as well. A very good podcast I recently listened to on Radio West with the author John Shelby Spong talking about his new book on biblical literalism. I highly recommend this. http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/biblical-literalism That is essentially my question today. Why should I stay. I can add value to the church, yes, but there are negatives as well. Its a cost/benefit question for me. Do the benefits outweigh the costs today? If we had a couple Greg Prince's in my home ward, that would help a lot! :-) On internal peace and the communion with the infinite exclusive of religious faith? I don't know the answer to that. I guess it could be argued each religious faith does it for different people in different ways. For me, Mormonism is best. On Spong. Agree, but when it comes to Christian voices in that category, my favorite by far is Marcus Borg. I think he has the same message without the sometimes over-critical, faith destroying tone Spong has. For Spong, it's ludicrous to believe in the empty tomb. For Borg, believe or don't believe in the empty tomb, but let's come together and talk about the message of what the resurrected Christ means.
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 36 minutes ago, smac97 said: I concede that there are true and correct principles to be found in stories that do not need to be historically authentic to have value. For example, the historicity of a particular parable spoken by Christ is, I think, largely immaterial to its spiritual/moral value. However, the historicity of the existence of Christ is a markedly different issue. If Christ never existed, then belief in Him has no salvific power. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" has no meaning or relevance. In fact, it is a lie and a fraud which must be affirmatively rejected if there is no historicity underlying it. I think the same must be said for The Book of Mormon. 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, in my view, 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." A fictional Jesus Christ does not work as pertaining to our salvation, nor does a fictional Book of Mormon. I find it hard to believe you really believe this I don't think you are naive about history and to base your belief on history instead of testimony, is in my opinion, a pretty poor reason for being in the church much less than give a tenth of your income etc etc based on what someone else says about "what really happened" Would you give me a tenth of your income for life if I could prove that John Wilkes Booth was NOT Lincoln's assassin? What other "historical fact" WOULD you give me your tithing if I could disprove? I would wager the real answer is "none". You are a member based on testimony, not history. Anyone would be a fool to base a religious belief on hearsay evidence- it doesn't even work in court! 2
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: I would leave. I enjoy metaphor and myth as much or more then your average person but I am unwilling to sacrifice what the gospel asks for if it is metaphor and myth. Now if it is a myth that actually happened....that I can get behind. Based on your extensive historical knowledge of the crucifixion and the physics of the atonement, and how driving some nails in flesh is the first cause leading to the forgiveness of sin? Is it possible that your historical belief is really a religious belief in history- something you BELIEVE "actually happened" but are at a loss or prove how it worked? I mean you can believe in literal golden plates and all, but how about an angel delivering them? What is the historical evidence for angels? Where does the "myth" end and "actually happened" begin? 2
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 (edited) Quote "If Christ never lived then belief in him has no salvific power" If Christ didn't exist why do we need "salvific power" in the first place? If there was no fall, why do we need redemption? Either you have testimony of all of it or it is not necessary to believe any of it! -- Atheism 101 The only possible reply will be based on testimony or atheists agreeing with me. Edited October 10, 2016 by mfbukowski 1
smac97 Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: This is the easiest to refute and discharge among the evidences. It is? How so? Refuting/discharging the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses would seem to require one or more of the following accusations: Joseph Smith knowingly fabricated a sham artifact (the Plates). Joseph Smith, suffering from some sort of profound mental illness, fabricated the Plates while in a deluded/insane state. Joseph Smith spent most of his life relying on a narrative fraught with lies and deceit about the Gold Plates and the origins of The Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith, suffering from some sort of profound mental illness, fabricated a false-but-well-intentioned narrative about seeing God, angelic visitations, Gold Plates, having physical possession of the Plates, etc. He maintained this false narrative for the remainder of his life, even though it was the product of his being deluded/insane. And nobody of Joseph Smith's personal acquaintance apparently ever detected his mental illness and protracted detachment from reality. Joseph Smith used considerable measures deceit in his presentation of the Plates (he led the Eight Witnesses to believe it was an ancient artifact which he had uncovered from a nearby hill, having been led to them by an angel of God). This deceit was either A) intentional on Joseph Smith's part, or B) was well-intentioned but arose from his having a profound mental illness that left him unable to distinguish reality from delusion. Joseph Smith conspired with others to fabricate the sham artifact (though none of his co-conspirators ever came forward). These conspiratorial efforts were either A) intentional on Joseph Smith's part, or B) were well-intentioned but arose from his having a profound mental illness that left him unable to distinguish reality from delusion. Joseph Smith conspired with the Eight Witnesses and asked them to lie (about seeing the Plates, as there were no plates). These conspiratorial efforts were either A) intentional on Joseph Smith's part, or B) were well-intentioned but arose from his having a profound mental illness that left him unable to distinguish reality from delusion. Joseph Smith drugged or otherwise deceived the Eight Witnesses into collectively declaring that they had all seen the Plates, when in fact they had not. This misconduct was either A) intentional on Joseph Smith's part, or B) was well-intentioned but arose from his having a profound mental illness that left him unable to distinguish reality from delusion. I think there are more, but these will do for the moment. Prince and others of the "Inspired Fiction" line of reasoning appear to posit that continuing faith in the LDS Church is not only possible, but preferable, when the historicity of The Book of Mormon is jettisoned. I question that. The above parade of horribles make me question that. The "Inspired Fiction" theory requires faithful Latter-day Saints to accept that Joseph Smith, the Three Witnesses, the Eight Witnesses, and so on were all suffering from some combination of profound dishonesty, mental illness, a secret combinations/conspiracies. And yet from this morass of lies and deceit and delusion and mental illness and secretive conspiracies . . . sprang a text inspired by God. A text which presents itself as being of ancient derivation. A text which Joseph Smith presented as being of ancient origin. And our responsibility is to categorically reject and deny what the text says about itself, and also what Joseph Smith said, and what the Witnesses said, and even what the voice of God said, and instead adopt a theory that requires us to impute the above parade of horribles onto Joseph Smith and the Witnesses. And to believe that God is the author of all of this. That God endorsed and approved and even inspired the web of lies and deceit and conspiracy and mental illness that are part and parcel of the "Inspired Fiction" theory. Well, good luck with that. As for me, however, I cannot reconcile the "Inspired Fiction" theory with any sort of meaningful, continuing faith in the Restored Gospel. but that's just me. On a closing note, three of the Eight Witnesses (Jacob Whitmer, John Whitmer, and Hiram Page) were all later estranged from the LDS Church, all having been excommunicated in 1838. Yet despite these men collectively having lived for 72 years after excommunication (18, 40 and 12 years, respectively), none of them ever recanted their testimony pertaining to The Book of Mormon. How have you accounted for that? Thanks, -Smac 2
hope_for_things Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 33 minutes ago, churchistrue said: On internal peace and the communion with the infinite exclusive of religious faith? I don't know the answer to that. I guess it could be argued each religious faith does it for different people in different ways. For me, Mormonism is best. On Spong. Agree, but when it comes to Christian voices in that category, my favorite by far is Marcus Borg. I think he has the same message without the sometimes over-critical, faith destroying tone Spong has. For Spong, it's ludicrous to believe in the empty tomb. For Borg, believe or don't believe in the empty tomb, but let's come together and talk about the message of what the resurrected Christ means. Yeah, I don't believe any particular religion has a corner on the market for internal peace. I'm also not sure that internal peace isn't just as achievable outside religion all together. Thanks, I have some books of Borg, I haven't read yet, but looking forward to it. I liked the interview with Spong because he was so straight forward about some of the challenges inherent in Christian religious thinking. He's a man that has conviction, but he isn't shy about pointing out flaws in religion that are common in our culture today. I loved his interview. Thanks for your blog and what you do. 2
James Tunney Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: If Christ didn't exist why do we need "salvific power" in the first place? If there was no fall, why do we need redemption? Either you have testimony of all of it or it is not necessary to believe any of it! -- Atheism 101 The only possible reply will be based on testimony or atheists agreeing with me. I guess my problem with this line of reasoning is that one could gain a "testimony" based on a religious fraud and that wouldn't matter. For me, this is the essence of the problem for the church and why historicity matters. If J.S. invented his experiences or had an experience but then invented the remainder, I would have a problem with this. Perhaps one has a spiritual experience at a particular church and the church merely acts as a mechanism for the religious experience, but does that justify all the time and money requirements? Does it justify missionary work? If it isn't what it claims, it's hard to ask someone to sacrifice so much. 1
smac97 Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 29 minutes ago, rockpond said: Prince is perfunctory? Lazy? That's really an off-the-mark assessment. Look at the guy's bio. First, I said: "Prince's assessment of the historicity issue sounds perfunctory, even lazy." Second, per churchistrue: "He doesn't get into the details of why he doesn't believe the BOM isn't historical, but alludes to DNA and other scientific/historical issues like that." Third, I am open to correction. Which part of his interview goes into detail regarding "the historicity issue" and provides a balanced, informed assessment of it? 29 minutes ago, rockpond said: Having listened to all four hours of the pocast, I believe that Prince's response to you would be that if the literal belief in Book of Mormon historicity works for you, go with it. Okay. 29 minutes ago, rockpond said: He was speaking to those who can no longer make the historical viewpoint work. I know. But again, I think his assessment of the historicity issue - rather then central point of contention for those "who can no longer make the historical viewpoint work" - sounds perfunctory, even lazy. He is not addressing the significance of the issue. He is not addressing the merits of the arguments as to why historicity is important. Instead, he sneers at such things, and at the persons talking about such things ("It’s a hill they’re willing to die on. And I’m sitting there thinking that’s a stupid battle; you missed the whole point."). 29 minutes ago, rockpond said: But he also, throughout the podcast, is arguing for a position wherein faith is something that transcends a list of belief statements and should not be rooted in whether scripture is literal, allegorical, historical, etc. We can have faith in Christ without caring about whether He ever existed? Or whether He was the literal Son of God? Or whether He taught that He is the sole means of salvation? Or whether He performed miracles? Or whether He atoned for our sins? Or whether He died and was resurrected and ascended into heaven? Or whether He is the Savior of the World? Whether these things are historical (they happened) or not (they're fictional) does not matter? If they are not "rooted" in historicity ("the historical actuality of persons and events, meaning the quality of being part of history as opposed to being a historical myth, legend, or fiction"), then what should they be rooted in? According to you, Prince is saying that "faith is something that transcends" all of these things. I do not accept that. I have faith in Christ precisely because He lived. Because He is more than just an admirable person (real or fictional). Having faith in a fictional Christ makes no more sense to me than trying to rely on an imaginary life preserver while drowning. It may make you feel like you have something to rely on, but in truth you really don't. Regarding the historicity of The Book of Mormon, I will again quote Elder Oaks: "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." Thanks, -Smac 1
Recommended Posts