hope_for_things Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 15 hours ago, mfbukowski said: What is a "physical/tangible experience" which is not "in your mind"? You got chairs and tables inside your head? What are "physical tanglible experiences" made of? Ha! I was worried that you might read my response and respond with philosophical logic. :-) Its turtles all the way down....
Gray Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 8 hours ago, smac97 said: First, I'm not sure what you mean by "primitive American fundamentalist approaches to scripture." I think I mean the kind of Scottish Common Sense Realism that was popular in early America. Whatever the English text seems to mean is what it means. Of course that ignores centuries of exegetical tradition and it ignores the historical and cultural context that you can't get from a "plain" reading of the Bible. 8 hours ago, smac97 said: Second, "the story of the restoration" doesn't have a lot of subtlety and nuance about it. I don't think it's as susceptible to theological debates which are deployed when discussing translations of ancient writings (the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Revelation, and so on). So when we have writings from Joseph Smith, the original author, about his experiences, and when those writings are in English (not translated and re-translated), and when the "chain of custody" for his writings is clear and beyond reasonable dispute, and when he says things like "I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me...", then much (most?) of the complexity and nuance of "approaching" scripture pretty much goes out the window, and we're left with accepting these plain-spoken words, or not. The "or not" options can be varied in their reasoning, but they all end up at the same place: rejecting the straightforward testimony of Joseph Smith. The chain of custody for the version of the first vision you refer to is not clear, and may not have been even entirely composed by Joseph Smith. The first version of the first vision is much clearer and less problematic. In any case, when Joseph calls the experience a vision and when he ends the story by saying he woke up on his back in the woods, I don't think it's entirely clear that we're talking about physical events. "When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven." 8 hours ago, smac97 said: Third, I am curious about what alternative "approaches" to reading/interpreting the above statement ("I had actually seen a light...I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me..."). What other-than-"literal" approach to this verse is warranted? When Joseph says "I had actually seen a light," do we really have room to assert a figurative explanation? Joseph's experienced something that was real to him. I think we can be sure of that. 8 hours ago, smac97 said: I'm not saying we are obligated to believe Joseph's narrative. That is a matter of faith for the individual. But Prince et al. appear to be advocating something along the lines of "Yeah, when Joseph said he 'had actually seen a light,' but he didn't, nor did he really see 'two Personages,' and 'they did in reality speak to me' should be interpreted as just a metaphor." I think Joseph definitely experienced something. Sometimes even real experiences can be understood as a metaphor for something else. In any case, the ways in which the story grew from its original boundaries can definitely be taken metaphorically. 8 hours ago, smac97 said: Can you see how that seems rather a stretch? Why import complexity where none exists? Why inject ambiguity into a straightforward, written-in-modern-English, first-person explanation of events? I am reminded of 2 Nephi 25:28: "And now behold, my people, ye are a stiffnecked people; wherefore, I have spoken plainly unto you, that ye cannot misunderstand." And Jacob 4:14: And 2 Nephi 31:2-3: And 2 Nephi 32:7 "Plainness" in communications is a rather significant narrative element in The Book of Mormon. It seems like the text was supposed to be read and construed and applied in a straightforward manner. The same manner which you seem to find problematic. That is one sign that it is a modern composition and not an ancient one. Scottish common sense realism strikes again! 8 hours ago, smac97 said: I have said nothing close to any of that. You are misrepresenting my position. Flagrantly. I don't want to try to force you into saying that you think that Prince's position is a form of apostasy, but that seems to be what you are implying. Am I wrong? 8 hours ago, smac97 said: Oi. This "fundamentalism" brickbat is getting a bit tiresome. The Book of Mormon was written with "plainness" in mind. Yes, it has rich and beautiful complexity, but those elements are in addition to the "plain" ones. My sense is that Nephi and Jacob and their ilk were pretty much straight shooters. They spoke "with plainness." So did Joseph Smith. Yes, think about the implication of that. 8 hours ago, smac97 said: And yet folks like Prince want to come along and tell the Saints to ignore this "plainness," to ignore what Joseph said in his first-person, written-in-English narrative about the origins of The Book of Mormon, and to instead adopt some vague, barely-coherent alternate explanation for the origins of The Book of Mormon. I think you'll find that even conservative apologetic approaches are obliged not to take Joseph Smith's statements about the Book of Mormon at face value. 8 hours ago, smac97 said: I'll quote Jacob 4:14 again, as it just seems so darn applicable here: Some sage observations, I think. You know, Jesus is reported to have almost never spoken with the kind of plainness you think is so refreshing. 8 hours ago, smac97 said: You are attempting to use "fundamentalism" as a slur. But I don't think it will work. I think you would be surprised at some of my personal opinions about "interpreting" the scriptures. But "interpreting" JS-H in the way that Prince apparently advocates . . . nope. Can't do it. That seems like wresting the scriptures (JS-H, that is). When Joseph Smith declares "I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me...", I think it is eminently reasonable to construe this in a straightforward way. I can understand where you're coming from. But JSH is by no means as clear and unambiguous as you might think. It does bear signs of editing and composition, despite the fact that I think we can all agree that there was a "real" experience that sparked it all. 8 hours ago, smac97 said: I guess in a sense my approach is affected, to some extent, by my training and experience as an attorney. I have worked on many cases where there is a dispute about the language of a contract. One of the fundamental (Ack! Now I'm using that word!) rules the courts use to interpret/construe the text of a contract is the "Plain Meaning Rule": This is fundamentalism to a T! Why object to the word when you so often advocate for what the word means! 8 hours ago, smac97 said: As I see it, Joseph Smith's explanation as to the origins of The Book of Mormon "have a clear and unambiguous meaning." So you can throw around academic frou-frou gobbledygook jargon like "primitive American fundamentalist approaches to scripture" all the live long day, and it really won't mean much. The Book of Mormon was written in "plainness." Evidence of its 19th century composition, if true. If the Book of Mormon really is ancient, the plain meaning rule will not help us get at the intent of its authors. 8 hours ago, smac97 said: So apostasy does not exist in reality? We are incapable of succumbing to it? I'll have to disagree with you there. In any event, quoting scriptures about "false doctrine" is not "fundamentalism." Acknowledging that apostasy can and does occur is not "fundamentalism." And here we are, with you as the sole person using the words "heresy" and "heretic." Thanks, -Smac Apostasy and heresy are used synonymously. It's just that mainstream Christians likes the word "heresy" more. It's just a way to shut down conversation by dressing up opinions in robes of authority. 1
Atheist Mormon Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 18 hours ago, smac97 said: 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 Too long of an answer for an easy question; Would you take Albert Einstein's word (alone) for veracity of speed of light? How about fifty doctors arriving my practice and testifying about a cancer preventing vaccine? How about Alfred Wegener, whose theory of Continental drift claimed Earth masses float ......which sane person would take their word alone? And yet you are asking me to rely on EIGHT people's word that never been tested, visually seen.....Yes, by nature I'm a skeptic extreme and rely on evidence, not hearsay.
smac97 Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: This was not addressed to me but I hope you don't mind if I comment on it for a moment. I know you are not fond of my posts and we disagree on many points. I hope to maybe resolve that to some degree. I don't recall ever expressing dislike of your posts (to be honest, I have a hard time keeping track of individuals on this board, as I'm not used to remembering people by pseudonyms). My writing style sometimes (often?) reflects my training as a lawyer, which means it comes across as terse and adversarial. I need to work on that. I am not particularly comfortable with or adept as the chatty conversational "Facebook" style of writing that is perhaps more popular. 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I believe that the "inspired fiction" view does in fact constitute false doctrine. Okay. 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Fiction is a deliberately concocted story known by the author, spun completely from whole cloth, either for purposes of entertainment, like say "Star Wars" or "War and Peace" or straight out fraud. Yes literature can be moving emotionally and convey great truths, and books like "The Brothers Karamazov" is famously known as being in the latter category. Yet no work of fiction can approach scripture in its effect on people. The level of "inspiration" is of an entirely different order. My point is an epistemological one, about how we KNOW the truth of the contents of scripture vs inspired fiction. Fraudulent fiction concocted to be passed off as "scripture" cannot possibly be "inspired" so as far as I am concerned the phrase "inspired fiction" applied to scripture is self contradictory. It cannot be "scripture" if it is concocted by the author to be passed off AS scripture because it is clearly not inspired. I think the "inspired fiction" folks would point to things like the Savior's parables as possibly being "inspired fiction", and they would have a point. But I think that "inspired fiction" as to The Book of Mormon is a qualitatively different scenario. It simply does not lend itself to being passed off as "fiction." 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: On the other hand we have ancient manuscripts or present pronouncements of prophets about religious matters which are "inspired" which have the weight of scripture. We KNOW the present pronouncements have been actually uttered by prophets- in many cases we have those talks on video, or good transcripts etc. In cases of ancient scripture in many cases we have no clue who the actual author of the book may be. Yet we are to accept these books on faith, with very little or no actual evidence who wrote them or under what intentions. Isaiah, for example gives us profound and beautiful links to Christ, yet there are questions about its authorship. How can we know that the book of Isaiah has "historicity"? Yet who could dispute that we should take these profound insights as anything less than "scripture"? The gospels speak of the events of Jesus' life, yet in many cases their authorship is also questioned. In some cases we have independent verification of the events but in many others, we have no such verification. Even if one takes the historicity of the crucifixion without question, how can we know that this "historical"event took away our sins?? How could we know that? Yet if it did not "actually happen" I AGREE WITH YOU there is no salvation. I wonder how the "inspired fiction" folks address this. They seem to gloss over it. 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: But how do we KNOW it happened with enough historical certainty to risk our immortal souls on this supposed historical certainty?? We don't "know." Not most of us, anyway. We operate on faith. Faith always carries with it an element of "risk." I am reminded of the following poem (author apparently unknown, but often attributed to Janet Rand or Leo Buscaglia): Quote RISKS To laugh is to risk appearing the fool To weep is to risk being called sentimental To reach out to another is to risk involvement To expose feelings is to risk showing your true self To place your ideas and your dreams before the crowd is to risk being called naive To love is to risk not being loved in return To live is to risk dying To hope is to risk despair To try is to risk failure But risks must be taken, because the greatest risk in life is to risk nothing. The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn, feel, change, grow or love. Chained by his certitude, he is a slave; he has forfeited his freedom. Only the person who risks is truly free. I relied on this poem many years ago to work up enough courage to propose to my wife. It worked! 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: For me, in the final analysis, we have testimony and personal revelation to confirm to us BOTH that the events "actually happened" AND that we are saved by those events. I would never risk my salvation on historical evidence!! I agree. 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: God himself has told me these principles are true and "In God We Trust-" all others have to make stronger cases than we have for historical scripture. So my position is that THOUGH I SEE THESE EVENTS AS HISTORY, I take that assertion itself on faith because the evidence is so scant I also take these things on faith (though I would not characterize the "evidence" and "scant"). 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: And certainly- the historical evidence for the BOM is even more scant, yet I see it as historical for the same reasons- I believe it happened but I take the truth that it happened on faith. I think accepting The Book of Mormon as historical requires a lot of faith. 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I cannot imagine a reasonable person thinking that there is enough historical evidence for the BOM to take it as scripture based on the evidence. That depends, I think, on what we mean by "evidence." I think there is considerable amount of circumstantial evidence, textual evidence, and even "historical" evidence. The overall probative weight of these evidences, however, is insufficient. I think it's supposed to be insufficient. A sufficiency of historical/empirical evidence would reduce or preclude the need to rely on faith. 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Moroni did not even ask that in Moroni 10:4-5- he expects us to take the truth based on testimony not history I think I will stick with his advice. Same here. Thanks, -Smac 2
Gray Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 (edited) 46 minutes ago, rongo said: Thanks for the backhanded, passive-aggressive compliment! . . . At least it wasn't front-handed or aggressively passive! Quote I actually agree with you. Not that fundamentalism isn't an intelligent position, but that it is held by many intelligent people for reasons other than "just the facts, ma'am." I think that secularism/higher criticism is, too. Our worldview and faith are largely chosen by us. They are mostly a choice, and it comes down to which each person wants to believe. Here's what's going on with me when I "choose" what to believe. I have come to believe that although limited, the critical scientific approach (within whatever discipline) is the best way of compiling accurate data about the world we live in. It won't be 100% accurate, but it will be closer than any other approach, which will amount to guessing. I haven't chosen to believe that - I am compelled to believe that. So the beliefs I CAN choose have to be interpretations/beliefs that are compatible with what I believe is the best data we have, and the academic theories that are best supported by data. And frankly, the best of academic Biblical studies and scientific data does not support a literal reading of ancient scripture. It doesn't fit with what we can learn about the text itself, it doesn't fit with the cultures of the people who wrote the texts, and it doesn't fit with what we know about how the world functions. I can choose to be a very liberal religious person, or I can choose to reject the whole thing, but I cannot choose to be a fundamentalist or a conservative on these issues. We cannot choose to believe absolutely anything at all - there are limits. Each of us has different limits on what we are able to believe. Edited October 11, 2016 by Gray 1
stemelbow Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 8 hours ago, smac97 said: In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." First, I'm not sure what you mean by "primitive American fundamentalist approaches to scripture." Second, "the story of the restoration" doesn't have a lot of subtlety and nuance about it. I don't think it's as susceptible to theological debates which are deployed when discussing translations of ancient writings (the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Revelation, and so on). So when we have writings from Joseph Smith, the original author, about his experiences, and when those writings are in English (not translated and re-translated), and when the "chain of custody" for his writings is clear and beyond reasonable dispute, and when he says things like "I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me...", then much (most?) of the complexity and nuance of "approaching" scripture pretty much goes out the window, and we're left with accepting these plain-spoken words, or not. The "or not" options can be varied in their reasoning, but they all end up at the same place: rejecting the straightforward testimony of Joseph Smith. I think there's plenty to disagree with and even question with the above, so it confuses me that to disagree with you is to be so eschewed. Joseph very well could have had an experience with the divine. But as soon as he put the experience to paper he's giving us something other than what it is. Sure he's doing his best, but that doesn't mean there's not plenty to dissect regarding what had happened. There is so little understood about any of the spiritual manifestations that happened in the early Church. I wish they happened today, but they don't, apparently. At least they don't happen wherein we discuss them or know about them. But let's consider. Joseph had a manifestation that is described as "actually" seeing a light and seeing two persons in the midst of that light. And he actually heard a voice. He also had such a manifestation with Moroni, wherein he actually saw Moroni and heard a voice. But, his siblings did not. Or with the three witnesses. One had to leave, as you'll recall, in order for the manifestation to occur for the others. When Joseph met up with Martin they each had an experience or manifestation but it seemed separate when Martin said he had seen enough. A non literal view of this does not mean nothing happened, that Joseph made anything up or anything. it means they were special personal experiences. Even Joseph seemed to think that was the case for the most part, as he seemed to guard the experiences and not tell many people, at least until he realized the implications of the experiences. There's no need to reject the straightforward testimony of Joseph when one adopts a non literal view of it all. 8 hours ago, smac97 said: Third, I am curious about what alternative "approaches" to reading/interpreting the above statement ("I had actually seen a light...I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me..."). What other-than-"literal" approach to this verse is warranted? When Joseph says "I had actually seen a light," do we really have room to assert a figurative explanation? Surely a personal vision is more than the description. One must not deny that something actually happened. But it is quite possible that if another were spying on Joseph that other wouldn't have seen a thing other than a dude on his knees. That's not denying Joseph anything. it means a vision is a vision and those outside it will never know it. 8 hours ago, smac97 said: I'm not saying we are obligated to believe Joseph's narrative. That is a matter of faith for the individual. But Prince et al. appear to be advocating something along the lines of "Yeah, when Joseph said he 'had actually seen a light,' but he didn't, nor did he really see 'two Personages,' and 'they did in reality speak to me' should be interpreted as just a metaphor." Probably good to let Prince speak for himself. In the interview, as I recall, he acknowledged Joseph experiences seemed to all start, in his view, with a spiritual manifestation. I don't see how he's denied that Joseph saw a light, nor two personages. 8 hours ago, smac97 said: Can you see how that seems rather a stretch? Why import complexity where none exists? Why inject ambiguity into a straightforward, written-in-modern-English, first-person explanation of events? I am reminded of 2 Nephi 25:28: "And now behold, my people, ye are a stiffnecked people; wherefore, I have spoken plainly unto you, that ye cannot misunderstand." And for me, I don't even see how this applies. What's stiffnecked about seeing things less literal? Indeed it seems likely that nearly all of scripture carries with it tinges of the non literal. People are free to figure out for themselves what he/she sees as literal. 8 hours ago, smac97 said: And Jacob 4:14: And 2 Nephi 31:2-3: And 2 Nephi 32:7 "Plainness" in communications is a rather significant narrative element in The Book of Mormon. It seems like the text was supposed to be read and construed and applied in a straightforward manner. The same manner which you seem to find problematic. The steps are easy enough to follow for me. the BoM could be scripture and yet not literal history, since largely much of the BIble is just that. it could also be that the BOM could be scripture with very literal accuracy in the description of history. It could very well be that there was a person out there that lived and was like a Lehi. In some ways it feels unlikely. But what does it matter if someone sees it unlikely but yet still appreciates the book as scripture? It does nothing to Joseph's story, in my mind, as you seem to think. 8 hours ago, smac97 said: I have said nothing close to any of that. You are misrepresenting my position. Flagrantly. Oi. This "fundamentalism" brickbat is getting a bit tiresome. The Book of Mormon was written with "plainness" in mind. Yes, it has rich and beautiful complexity, but those elements are in addition to the "plain" ones. My sense is that Nephi and Jacob and their ilk were pretty much straight shooters. They spoke "with plainness." So did Joseph Smith. And yet folks like Prince want to come along and tell the Saints to ignore this "plainness," to ignore what Joseph said in his first-person, written-in-English narrative about the origins of The Book of Mormon, and to instead adopt some vague, barely-coherent alternate explanation for the origins of The Book of Mormon. You are misrepresenting Prince, it seems. He's not denying the Book of Mormon as being scripture. Nobody is saying anything about ignore what Joseph has said, nor ignore the book itself. The opposite in fact. 8 hours ago, smac97 said: I'll quote Jacob 4:14 again, as it just seems so darn applicable here: Some sage observations, I think. I am reminded of a funny YouTube video. My kids love a YouTube channel called HISHE ("How It Should Have Ended"), which is a series of animated shorts poking fun at plot holes, illogic, etc. in popular movies. One short deals with the movie Frozen and the illogic used by Elsa's parents. Here's the clip (the relevant portion starts at 0:20 and goes to about 1:20): Here's the relevant dialogue: I can't help but think that the "Inspired Fiction" folks are sorta like Elsa's parents here. They are not listening to straight talk. You are attempting to use "fundamentalism" as a slur. But I don't think it will work. I think you would be surprised at some of my personal opinions about "interpreting" the scriptures. But "interpreting" JS-H in the way that Prince apparently advocates . . . nope. Can't do it. That seems like wresting the scriptures (JS-H, that is). When Joseph Smith declares "I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me...", I think it is eminently reasonable to construe this in a straightforward way. I guess in a sense my approach is affected, to some extent, by my training and experience as an attorney. I have worked on many cases where there is a dispute about the language of a contract. One of the fundamental (Ack! Now I'm using that word!) rules the courts use to interpret/construe the text of a contract is the "Plain Meaning Rule": As I see it, Joseph Smith's explanation as to the origins of The Book of Mormon "have a clear and unambiguous meaning." So you can throw around academic frou-frou gobbledygook jargon like "primitive American fundamentalist approaches to scripture" all the live long day, and it really won't mean much. The Book of Mormon was written in "plainness." Joseph Smith's narrative as to the origins of The Book of Mormon are eminently susceptible to the Plain Meaning Rule. That seems like a reasonable approach. That seems like the approach we are supposed to take. Well, I think there are some of us that disagree with the strictness of your thinking on this and it seems more and more will be open to considering the scriptures, not just the BoM, are fraught with theology over history. That the purpose is not to get history correct, but to describe in the author's view how we are supposed to believe. It matters not if the scriptures represent literal history in that sense. 8 hours ago, smac97 said: I agree. Which may indicate that your accusation of anti-intellectualism is not apt. The Plain Meaning Rule is, I think, a superior approach to Joseph Smith's narrative than academic approaches which have been developed to address issuers pertaining to language translation, unfamiliar cultural milieus, errors in translation, chain of custody issues, etc. None of those complexities are relevant to Joseph Smith-History and its recitation of the origins of The Book of Mormon. So apostasy does not exist in reality? We are incapable of succumbing to it? I'll have to disagree with you there. In any event, quoting scriptures about "false doctrine" is not "fundamentalism." Acknowledging that apostasy can and does occur is not "fundamentalism." And here we are, with you as the sole person using the words "heresy" and "heretic." Thanks, -Smac I'd say it's far more important that we seek the divine in any way we can, than to make sure we believe everything correctly. Apostasy is interesting because none of us would ever know if we are in apostasy. Some might say apostasy starts as soon as God essentially takes away His authority. It may have less to do with getting it right, and whether we believe accounts as literally happening. It feels like there is far too much for us to learn to think we can set up our boundaries. I suppose we can guess and think the leaders will know. But we dont' know. We only know our personal experiences. We must trust them. I find Prince's view interesting in that we need not quibble about the particulars because we simply don't know how it really happened. We can't comprehend Joseph's vision beyond the description. We'd just be guessing how it worked. That doesn't mean there's not something for us to take away from his descriptions. 3
Johnnie Cake Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 11 hours ago, mfbukowski said: This was not addressed to me but I hope you don't mind if I comment on it for a moment. I know you are not fond of my posts and we disagree on many points. I hope to maybe resolve that to some degree. I believe that the "inspired fiction" view does in fact constitute false doctrine. Fiction is a deliberately concocted story known by the author, spun completely from whole cloth, either for purposes of entertainment, like say "Star Wars" or "War and Peace" or straight out fraud. Yes literature can be moving emotionally and convey great truths, and books like "The Brothers Karamazov" is famously known as being in the latter category. Yet no work of fiction can approach scripture in its effect on people. The level of "inspiration" is of an entirely different order. My point is an epistemological one, about how we KNOW the truth of the contents of scripture vs inspired fiction. Fraudulent fiction concocted to be passed off as "scripture" cannot possibly be "inspired" so as far as I am concerned the phrase "inspired fiction" applied to scripture is self contradictory. It cannot be "scripture" if it is concocted by the author to be passed off AS scripture because it is clearly not inspired. On the other hand we have ancient manuscripts or present pronouncements of prophets about religious matters which are "inspired" which have the weight of scripture. We KNOW the present pronouncements have been actually uttered by prophets- in many cases we have those talks on video, or good transcripts etc. In cases of ancient scripture in many cases we have no clue who the actual author of the book may be. Yet we are to accept these books on faith, with very little or no actual evidence who wrote them or under what intentions. Isaiah, for example gives us profound and beautiful links to Christ, yet there are questions about its authorship. How can we know that the book of Isaiah has "historicity"? Yet who could dispute that we should take these profound insights as anything less than "scripture"? The gospels speak of the events of Jesus' life, yet in many cases their authorship is also questioned. In some cases we have independent verification of the events but in many others, we have no such verification. Even if one takes the historicity of the crucifixion without question, how can we know that this "historical"event took away our sins?? How could we know that? Yet if it did not "actually happen" I AGREE WITH YOU there is no salvation. But how do we KNOW it happened with enough historical certainty to risk our immortal souls on this supposed historical certainty?? For me, in the final analysis, we have testimony and personal revelation to confirm to us BOTH that the events "actually happened" AND that we are saved by those events. I would never risk my salvation on historical evidence!! God himself has told me these principles are true and "In God We Trust-" all others have to make stronger cases than we have for historical scripture. So my position is that THOUGH I SEE THESE EVENTS AS HISTORY, I take that assertion itself on faith because the evidence is so scant And certainly- the historical evidence for the BOM is even more scant, yet I see it as historical for the same reasons- I believe it happened but I take the truth that it happened on faith. I cannot imagine a reasonable person thinking that there is enough historical evidence for the BOM to take it as scripture based on the evidence. Moroni did not even ask that in Moroni 10:4-5- he expects us to take the truth based on testimony not history I think I will stick with his advice. Wow we are in agreement....an inspired fiction model would be the death nail of the church, in my opinion. While I also feel that its current model has major flaws and is not sustainable, at least with LDS apologetics, the church has been able to stave off complete faith disaster by creating safe harbors where faith and belief can be maintained through the use of faith sustaining scenarios.
hope_for_things Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 14 hours ago, smac97 said: The "Inspired Fiction" theory presents a real dichotomy, not a false one. Latter-day Saints encountering this theory are forced into an either/or situation. They can listen to and accept the explanation for the origins of The Book of Mormon as explained in scripture and in historical records from Joseph Smith, or they can reject that explanation and in its place accept an alternate one posted by folks like Prince. We're not dealing with nuanced distinctions about details here. This is not an issue where a modern theory can be reconciled with Joseph's narrative. It's an either/or situation. A dichotomy ("a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different"). Either Joseph Smith was visited by an angel named Moroni (the Church's teaching), or he was not (an implicit assumption of the "Inspired Fiction" folks). Either this angel led Joseph to discover a set of ancient metal plates buried in a hill for centuries (the Church's teaching), or not (the "Inspired Fiction" approach). Joseph Smith either obtained possession of ancient metal plates (the Church's teaching) or he did not (the "Inspired Fiction" approach). The Three Witnesses either saw an angel descend from heaven and show them these plates (the Church's teaching) or they did not (the "Inspired Fiction" approach). Either there was an ancient historical figure named "Lehi" as described in The Book of Mormon (the Church's teaching) or there was not (the "Inspired Fiction" approach). Either there was a migration of Lehi and his family and friends from the Arabian Peninsula to the Americas (the Church's teaching) or there was not (the "Inspired Fiction" approach). These are factual assertions presented by, on the one hand, Joseph Smith and his successors, and by the Church, and on the other hand are being rejected as factually false by the "Inspired Fiction" folks. So with respect, I think the "Inspired Fiction" theory necessarily requires a rejection of these things. I refer back to the Greg Prince interview for an answer to this. He said that the way he looks at the BoM is as a Midrash on the Bible. He also talked about looking at the BoA as a correlary type experience, where there was something tangible, in this case some papyrus as part of this process that led to the creation of the BoA. All of your either/or bullets above are great examples of binary thinking. Either the angel visited Moroni, or he didn't. The way you've constructed these questions to be one of two outcomes doesn't allow for any other possibilities? I don't know what happened, but I'm not willing to limit the possible outcomes to two sides of a coin. That being said, I personally don't see enough evidence for a historical BoM, so I tend to be closer to Greg Prince's concept of a Midrash on the Bible kind of perspective. 15 hours ago, smac97 said: But we aren't talking only about "experiences." We are talking about artifacts. Physical, tangible objects. And we are talking about a historical record of peoples and events which the Church declares to have existed/occurred, and which the "Inspired Fiction" folks are declaring did not exist/occur. Prince talks about this with the Golden Plates and that he believes there was something tangible there, the witness accounts back this up. I also believe there was something there, I tend to think this Ann Taves conception makes some sense to me. http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/B-6-Golden-Plates-Numen.pdf 15 hours ago, smac97 said: Okay. Can you explain your position in a bit more detail? If you reject the teachings of the Church on these issues, if you reject the version of events described by Joseph Smith, then what is your alternative explanation for things like the Plates? The witnesses? The text? Its hard to do this succinctly and do it justice, but I'll try. Witnesses - I think they were well intentioned. Their 19th century world view was heavily influenced by metaphysical thinking, dreams, visions, supernatural experiences were part of their lens. We have a much different culture. I believe if Joseph and the witnesses were in the church today, and made the same claims about their experiences, that we would reject them as crazy. I know that sounds harsh, but their entire views about everyday things were so starkly different than how we see the world today, we wouldn't accept these people as sane and of sound faculties of judgment. Plates were real, but not from an ancient civilization, likely created by Joseph or someone else, definitely a 19th century artifact. Seer stones don't work, nothing supernatural happening on a stone. Everything was happening in the minds of the people, Joseph's mind, the minds of the witnesses (with the exception of touching plates hidden under a cloth). Now we would get into the philosophy of what I currently believe. Whether the things that people experience in their minds is real or not. I think it is real, and I think it is meaningful and I don't want to discount it. It changes lives, its important to me and to the human race, and its important to God. So everything that Joseph and witnesses and followers experienced, including my ancestors, these things mattered to them, they shaped their lives in important ways. My life is different, I see things differently. This doesn't make my life any more authentic than theirs. It might mean that I see things differently though, and I understand things that they saw as supernatural very differently, I have natural explanations for some of those things and this makes sense to me and my understanding of the world. Hope this helps! 15 hours ago, smac97 said: What about the miracles wrought by Jesus Christ? What about his suffering in Gethsemane and on the Cross? What about His physical resurrection? What about His literal ascension into heaven? Are these "experiences" that can be ignored by people who profess faith in Christ? Are these events which can be rejected as never having happened? These are all theological explanations, no historical facts to prove any of those things. Those are propositions of belief without evidence to confirm they actually happened. 15 hours ago, smac97 said: The "inspired fiction" approach to The Book of Mormon requires a rejection of The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be. To accept it on those grounds would be like saying "Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and my Lord and Savior, even though I reject the idea that he ever actually existed." A fictional Christ does not work for me, and neither does a fictional Book of Mormon. I'm not saying its easy, but you're going to have to break outside the box you're in, to think differently. How do you know, what you know? Your personal experiences, these happen inside your mind and soul, but what do those experiences tell you about Jesus that lived 2000 years ago, what do they tell you about the BoM people? Can you learn factual information about historical events through prayer? What about physics, biology, mathematics, accounting, medicine, the legal system, etc. What you know religiously is not the same kind of knowledge. What you think you know about Jesus and the BoM aren't based on strong historical evidence, its based on spiritual confirmation. What's the spiritual confirmation telling you? It can't be telling you historical facts, thats not how the spirit works, it doesn't tell you about the specifics of those disciplines. Spiritual knowledge is a different kind of knowledge. 1
James Tunney Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Nonsense, James. That's the old "They really didn't mean it" response. I think that we must take them at their word, and that the essays are not part of a hidden-in-plain-sight plot. I know of no evidence which would support such an absurd claim. It is, however, part of the old "Damned if you do, and damned if you don't" pattern among ill-wishers. You're probably right. Legal reasons surely didn't have anything to do with it because they would never do that. It's old thinking for sure. Also, the people I know who were silenced for informing other members about the essays during church - this was probably had something to do with some other reason. 1
Gray Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 26 minutes ago, James Tunney said: You're probably right. Legal reasons surely didn't have anything to do with it because they would never do that. It's old thinking for sure. Also, the people I know who were silenced for informing other members about the essays during church - this was probably had something to do with some other reason. There is no legal risk for any church to teach any doctrine it chooses - at least not in the US.
Atheist Mormon Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 6 hours ago, cdowis said: Metaphors could only exist in the mind of Joseph Smith, , but he boldly brought in witnesses to testify of a physical reality. where was the psychical reality outside the minds of 8 said witnesses? Just because they testified of seeing the plates doesn't make so. As those countless abduction stories having no merit. But I do accept, this is completely a faith (believing) issue, not evidence.
mfbukowski Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Ha! I was worried that you might read my response and respond with philosophical logic. :-) Its turtles all the way down.... Logic is logic. Either you use it or you are illogical 1
hope_for_things Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 11 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I believe that the "inspired fiction" view does in fact constitute false doctrine. Fiction is a deliberately concocted story known by the author, spun completely from whole cloth, either for purposes of entertainment, like say "Star Wars" or "War and Peace" or straight out fraud. Yes literature can be moving emotionally and convey great truths, and books like "The Brothers Karamazov" is famously known as being in the latter category. Yet no work of fiction can approach scripture in its effect on people. The level of "inspiration" is of an entirely different order. My point is an epistemological one, about how we KNOW the truth of the contents of scripture vs inspired fiction. Fraudulent fiction concocted to be passed off as "scripture" cannot possibly be "inspired" so as far as I am concerned the phrase "inspired fiction" applied to scripture is self contradictory. It cannot be "scripture" if it is concocted by the author to be passed off AS scripture because it is clearly not inspired. On the other hand we have ancient manuscripts or present pronouncements of prophets about religious matters which are "inspired" which have the weight of scripture. We KNOW the present pronouncements have been actually uttered by prophets- in many cases we have those talks on video, or good transcripts etc. In cases of ancient scripture in many cases we have no clue who the actual author of the book may be. Yet we are to accept these books on faith, with very little or no actual evidence who wrote them or under what intentions. Isaiah, for example gives us profound and beautiful links to Christ, yet there are questions about its authorship. I'd like to challenge some of your points here. How do you judge the intentions of the author and distinguish between a fictional writing for entertainment or for fraud? I propose that there is no distinguishable difference between the two. Look at the bible, you say that in many cases we have no clue who the actual author of a book may be. We have lots of evidence of pseudepigraphical works in both the new and old testaments. Many of the authors were intentionally writing things to assert their theological beliefs and to get the authoritative weight that another author's name brings. Also many books have been altered over time to have different meanings than the original author intended. How can you distinguish between the intentions of the multiple different authors who wrote using pseudonyms? We call all of it scripture today, just because the passage of time and the fact that these writings were canonized. Does this make their works any more "inspired" than works of authors that haven't been canonized? Have you ever read an account of a modern author that described their experience writing literature as a mystical process? I've heard multiple authors talk about how they weren't making up a character in their work, but how the character actually existed and that they were giving voice to the words of a person that they felt was real inside their mind. I just attended a play, written by Sting titled The Last Ship, its a story about the town he grew up in. He talked about his process writing this play and how at times it felt like the story itself was coming out of him so fast he likened the experience to projectile vomiting. These kinds of inspirational moments I don't think are different from the ways that prophets experience the writing of scripture. They sounds nearly identical to me, and I can't clearly distinguish between the two experiences. 12 hours ago, mfbukowski said: So my position is that THOUGH I SEE THESE EVENTS AS HISTORY, I take that assertion itself on faith because the evidence is so scant And certainly- the historical evidence for the BOM is even more scant, yet I see it as historical for the same reasons- I believe it happened but I take the truth that it happened on faith. After interacting with you quite a bit in the past few months, I finally understand the nuance with which you speak much better. But I have to ask a question here. Why use the term history, when you describe your position towards these things? History is a specific discipline with well defined practices and rules. The way you describe why you see things as history, really has no relationship to history as a academic discipline. I think your use of that term is confusing to people that don't understand your position about spiritual truth. 2
Bobbieaware Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 22 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? Unless checked, the metaphorical Mormonism position could very well turn out to be an ingenious way for the adversary to fill the ranks of the Church with wolves in sheep's clothing; a way to have enemies of the truth hiding in plain sight right in our Sacrament, Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society meetings. In my opinion, if some are going to adopt the metaphorical Mormonism position, it's absolutely essential for them to proactively seek out the leaders of their wards and stakes and let them know, for example, that they do not believe Christ actually visited, ministered to and gave priesthood authority to the Nephites. With the bishops and stake presidents being made aware of the adherents to metaphorical Mormonism within their midst, they will be better equipped and able to approach the Lord for inspiration to determine if there is a way to utilize such half-in/half-out members of the Church in callings that do not require a sound and rooted testimony that, for instance, the Propjet Joseph Smith did indeed receive priesthood power and authority from actual living human personages.
mfbukowski Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 59 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Wow we are in agreement....an inspired fiction model would be the death nail of the church, in my opinion. While I also feel that its current model has major flaws and is not sustainable, at least with LDS apologetics, the church has been able to stave off complete faith disaster by creating safe harbors where faith and belief can be maintained through the use of faith sustaining scenarios. rep point. sorry you can't get them I suppose
rongo Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 4 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: With the bishops and stake presidents being made aware of the adherents to metaphorical Mormonism within their midst, they will be better equipped and able to approach the Lord for inspiration to determine if there is a way to utilize such half-in/half-out members of the Church in callings that do not require a sound and rooted testimony that, for instance, the Propjet Joseph Smith did indeed receive priesthood power and authority from actual living human personages. Maybe cleaning the building every Saturday? Or, just the enrichment committee?
stemelbow Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 13 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: Unless checked, the metaphorical Mormonism position could very well turn out to be an ingenious way for the adversary to fill the ranks of the Church with wolves in sheep's clothing; a way to have enemies of the truth hiding in plain sight right in our Sacrament, Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society meetings. In my opinion, if some are going to adopt the metaphorical Mormonism position, it's absolutely essential for them to proactively seek out the leaders of their wards and stakes and let them know, for example, that they do not believe Christ actually visited, ministered to and gave priesthood authority to the Nephites. With the bishops and stake presidents being made aware of the adherents to metaphorical Mormonism within their midst, they will be better equipped and able to approach the Lord for inspiration to determine if there is a way to utilize such half-in/half-out members of the Church in callings that do not require a sound and rooted testimony that, for instance, the Propjet Joseph Smith did indeed receive priesthood power and authority from actual living human personages. And maybe those who stick to a literal view of these things are the wolves, defining boundaries where God does not intend. I guess we could guess at this stuff all day long and arrive at the spot we started. 1
stemelbow Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: Wow we are in agreement....an inspired fiction model would be the death nail of the church, in my opinion. While I also feel that its current model has major flaws and is not sustainable, at least with LDS apologetics, the church has been able to stave off complete faith disaster by creating safe harbors where faith and belief can be maintained through the use of faith sustaining scenarios. Meh...the Church will maintain just fine with an inspired fiction model option. Indeed, many Mormons hold to such a model and aren't sent packing, even if some have been sent packing. The Church still goes. When a Mormon first thought, "huh...maybe the flood wasn't worldwide, maybe it wasn't at all...maybe it was just myth turned to scripture at some point", according to your thought, the Church would be gone today. But there's plenty of room to read scripture as not literal history and still get meaning and purpose out of it. Some might argue there is plenty more to get out of it if read in such a way. 2
hope_for_things Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 4 minutes ago, stemelbow said: And maybe those who stick to a literal view of these things are the wolves, defining boundaries where God does not intend. I guess we could guess at this stuff all day long and arrive at the spot we started. Words of Greg Prince from his interview: Quote Even those who stay in but stay in at the cost of trying to convince everybody else that there’s only one way to understand all of this and it’s extreme orthodoxy. That to me is as damaging as people who leave. 2
Gray Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 22 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: Unless checked, the metaphorical Mormonism position could very well turn out to be an ingenious way for the adversary to fill the ranks of the Church with wolves in sheep's clothing; a way to have enemies of the truth hiding in plain sight right in our Sacrament, Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society meetings. In my opinion, if some are going to adopt the metaphorical Mormonism position, it's absolutely essential for them to proactively seek out the leaders of their wards and stakes and let them know, for example, that they do not believe Christ actually visited, ministered to and gave priesthood authority to the Nephites. With the bishops and stake presidents being made aware of the adherents to metaphorical Mormonism within their midst, they will be better equipped and able to approach the Lord for inspiration to determine if there is a way to utilize such half-in/half-out members of the Church in callings that do not require a sound and rooted testimony that, for instance, the Propjet Joseph Smith did indeed receive priesthood power and authority from actual living human personages. I just had a conversation about that with a member of my bishopric. He seemed to agree with me on many points. He's a great guy, and I'm not so bad most days either. A shame for you to consider people like us as your enemy over a matter of interpretation. 3
rockpond Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 3 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Meh...the Church will maintain just fine with an inspired fiction model option. Indeed, many Mormons hold to such a model and aren't sent packing, even if some have been sent packing. The Church still goes. When a Mormon first thought, "huh...maybe the flood wasn't worldwide, maybe it wasn't at all...maybe it was just myth turned to scripture at some point", according to your thought, the Church would be gone today. But there's plenty of room to read scripture as not literal history and still get meaning and purpose out of it. Some might argue there is plenty more to get out of it if read in such a way. I think we have to get there through baby steps... as a church. I think some of those baby steps have been taken... like acknowledging that the Native Americans are not descendants of the Lamanites, that they are only "among the ancestors" (or whatever language was used). Next baby step: The message needs to start being communicated that we stop looking at the Book of Mormon as an accurate history and recognize that it is a religious text. 4
cdowis Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 37 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: where was the psychical reality outside the minds of 8 said witnesses? Just because they testified of seeing the plates doesn't make so. As those countless abduction stories having no merit. But I do accept, this is completely a faith (believing) issue, not evidence. The choice is simple = accept the eyewitness account or reject it. But in either case, the existence of witnesses is not metaphorical. The individuasl who identify themselves as eyewitnesses exist in reality whether you accept their testimony or not.
stemelbow Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: I think we have to get there through baby steps... as a church. I think some of those baby steps have been taken... like acknowledging that the Native Americans are not descendants of the Lamanites, that they are only "among the ancestors" (or whatever language was used). Next baby step: The message needs to start being communicated that we stop looking at the Book of Mormon as an accurate history and recognize that it is a religious text. I was saddened when Prince talked about both Juanita Brooks and Lester Bush and how he mentioned they were both shunned. Both pioneering, it seems to me, ways to view tough topics which as it turns out the Church by and large accepts today. I could imagine it. Introducing new ways to approach difficult topics in the Church often brings some level of panic which often results in lashing out by many members. I think that's what comes here. People in the Church hate the notion that a fellow member sitting amongst them thinks that the BoM is not good history, and may by and large represent scripture based on fictional stories.
smac97 Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 (edited) 26 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Meh...the Church will maintain just fine with an inspired fiction model option. Indeed, many Mormons hold to such a model and aren't sent packing, even if some have been sent packing. The Church still goes. In a macro sense, I agree with you. I think the Church can and does accommodate those who adopt the "inspired fiction" model (though I think problems may arise if someone tries to evangelize it too much - witness the disparate approaches re: "feminism" taken by Neylan McBaine (a member in good standing) and Kate Kelly (excommunicated for going too far)). But at the individual level, I can't say "meh" to the inspired fiction model. I have seen several instances of it starting or contributing to a crisis of faith, a cascade effect, along the lines of this: "Hmm. If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, and what Joseph Smith and the Witnesses said it was, and what every prophet and apostle has said it is, and if it is 'the keystone of our religion,' and if all of it is straight up fiction wrought through fraud and lies and deceit, then why stick with the Church? Its unique and exclusivistic truth claims are all tied to The Book of Mormon. If The Book of Mormon is a fraud, then the LDS Church is pretty much just a group of likeminded people trying to do good things. It has no credible claim as far as facilitating my relationship with God or affecting my eternal destiny. It's just a club with really expensive membership fees. I'm outta here!" I think this is a natural and foreseeable (but plainly not inevitable for everyone) ramification of the inspired fiction approach to the Restored Gospel. I have personal experience in watching the above "cascade effect" progress. That is why I speak against this approach. Of course, on the other side of the equation we have people who leave the Church because they cannot accept The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, and what Joseph Smith and the Witnesses said it was, and what every prophet and apostle has said it is. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 11, 2016 by smac97
stemelbow Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: In a macro sense, I agree with you. I think the Church can and does accommodate those who adopt the "inspired fiction" model (though I think problems may arise if someone tries to evangelize it too much - witness the disparate approaches re: "feminism" taken by Neylan McBaine (a member in good standing) and Kate Kelly (excommunicated for going too far)). But at the individual level, I can't say "meh" to the inspired fiction model. I have seen several instances of it starting or contributing to a crisis of faith, a cascade effect, along the lines of this: "Hmm. If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, and what Joseph Smith and the Witnesses said it was, and what every prophet and apostle has said it is, and if it is 'the keystone of our religion,' and if all of it is straight up fiction wrought through fraud and lies and deceit, then why stick with the Church? Its unique and exclusivistic truth claims are all tied to The Book of Mormon. If The Book of Mormon is a fraud, then the LDS Church is pretty much just a group of likeminded people trying to do good things. It has no credible claim as far as facilitating my relationship with God or affecting my eternal destiny. It's just a club with really expensive membership fees. I'm outta here!" I think this is a natural and foreseeable (but plainly not inevitable) ramification of the inspired fiction approach to the Restored Gospel. I have personal experience in watching the above "cascade effect" progress. That is why I speak against it. Thanks, -Smac I have to say that seems the opposite of accommodating an inspired fictional model. People up and leave often, it seems, not because they make room for the inspired fiction model but because they can't make it work when compared to the teaching that they must accept the literal model. Maybe with more acceptance of a inspired fictional model less will feel compelled to leave. Maybe people are leaving and folks like me leave because the dichotomy set up by those less tolerant is unbearable. Instead of seeing people leaving as the problem, maybe the problem is a lack of openness and acceptance? 1
Recommended Posts