Does anybody else consider the Book of Mormon to be fiction?

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Such as...... 

Gold looking plates? What if he was truly inspired by looking through the stones in a hat and need the prop of the plates to get the restoration in place? Not that I believe it. But having trouble with him being so secretive about showing the plates to certain people, such as his own wife.

[Benjamin Seeker]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A good many people, including scholars share the view that revelation and creativity are to be cross-identified.  That is why I already mentioned Bob Dylan's explicit statement that God gave him his lyrics.  However, most scholars take that as metaphor, and it is a major feature of scholarship on religion, as found for example in Mircea Eliade's Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd ed., 15 vols. (Macmillan, 2005).  That does not mean that they accept revelation or inspiration as objective reality.  Indeed, they claim that we have no access to objective reality through revelation -- because it is merely a feature of our imaginary world.  Just because someone is brilliantly clever and creative does not mean that he has been conversing with God.

Right, I'm getting at something more tangible than just brilliant creativity, like the 1837 Edgar Allen Poe story I linked to earlier about a lost whaling ship out of supplies who elect to canabalize a boy named Richard Parker. Then 46 years later an actual event occurs where a shipwrecked group of a few men canabalize the 17 year old cabin boy named Richard Parker. The second example is what Poe considered his greatest work, a poem titled Eureka!, which correctly describes various aspects of our universe, including the expanding nature of the universe and the Big Bang (some 80 years before it was conceived in the scientific community). Eureka also describes the nature of the human soul and its relationship to God in ways that scholars have compared with JS' teachings. Finally, the poem also promotes intuition as a better way of arriving to truth than the scientific method, which general importance of intuition was a significant belief for Poe, and I'm hypothesizing that Poe followed a kind of creative intuition while writing.  The above are potential examples of creativity producing verifiable truth, fact, or even events that were unknowable to Poe. I'm suggesting something similar in the dictation of the BOM, with a notable exception being that JS sincerely believed creativity had nothing to do with it.

This comes back to a question you posed to me earlier, which is couldn't this process that I'm hypothesizing contribute actual history? I have to acknowledge that yes, it could! However, one of the Book of Mormon's primary premises, that native Americans are descendants of Israelites, hasn't panned out yet, so while it would be wonderful and amazing if the BOM turned out to be historical, my hypothesis covers the likelihood that it isn't as well as the possibility that it is. That being said, either way I believe that God was involved in the translation or authoring, depending on your view, of the Book of Mormon.

Quote

You differentiate revelation (fact) and imagination (noise) here.  Something the scholars do not do.  The phenomenology of religion is observant and descriptive.  It does not make judgments about the truth in any religious assertions.  Scholars simply do not do that.  For that you need to consult with archeologists, asking hard questions about how likely it is that pure imagination could describe an ancient reality which is otherwise inaccessible. 

Like the experienced crime scene investigator (CSI), your task is not imaginary, but rather based on hard, scientific facts.  Only then can meaningful inferences and conclusions be drawn.

My concepts of verifiable fact and noise you address here come from distance or remote viewing, which is the idea that humans can view distant places accurately in their mind's eye. This was employed by the military at Ft. Meade for a number of years. The group did produce some important intel. For example, they produced sufficiently accurate info to put a rescue team within a mile of a downed military aircraft someplace in Africa I believe, and were publicly thanked and recognized by the federal government on the occasion. However, they also produced inactionable data that was unverifiable or false. The Wikipedia article is worth browsing. One impressive feat, not related to the military, included an accurate description of Jupiter's rings prior to their discovery. I use distance viewing as an example of a self-directed revelation-like process that has produced verifiable facts and noise, just like the BOM contains authentic ancient elements and other elements that appear to be of more modern fabrication.

If I were to try and produce a secular hypothesis and methodology to test it, I'd have to remove God entirely from the picture, as all of the examples I've givenseem to suggest something about human perception and not necessarily suggedt anything about God.

 

Edited November 28, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Gervin]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 That is why I already mentioned Bob Dylan's explicit statement that God gave him his lyrics.  

 

Which is why I'm glad God, through Bob, cleared up some questions about salvation:

"Nobody to rescue me
Nobody would dare
I was going down for the last time
But by His mercy I’ve been spared
Not by works
But by faith in Him who called
For so long I’ve been hindered
For so long I’ve been stalled

I’ve been saved"

http://bobdylan.com/songs/saved/

I'm also thankful for these lyrics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGxjIBEZvx0

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

. But having trouble with him being so secretive about showing the plates to certain people, such as his own wife.

So you think God was okay with him showing them and it was only Joseph's choice not to do so?

The Tablets were placed within the Ark.  How often do you think they were taken out to show people?

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Gold looking plates? What if he was truly inspired by looking through the stones in a hat and need the prop of the plates to get the restoration in place? Not that I believe it. But having trouble with him being so secretive about showing the plates to certain people, such as his own wife. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969].

(Forgive my bluntness here, Tacenda: this isn't personal, OK?  I would respond in like manner to anyone who writes something such what you wrote above.) Yeah, well, see, here's the thing: That kind of secrecy tends to happen when an angel tells you that if you show something to someone other than those to whom you are commanded to show it, you'll die (see Joseph Smith-History 1:42).  You don't have to believe Moroni told Joseph that; the point is, Joseph believed Moroni when Moroni told him that.  And I'm not sure why you apparently feel such a need to stick up for "poor" (my word) Sister Emma (granting, for the sake of this discussion that other people, such as Brigham Young, mistreated her).  It wasn't Lewis Bidamon's name on her lips, but rather Joseph's ... not just once, not just twice, but thrice ... when she passed from this life into the next.

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

(Forgive my bluntness here, Tacenda: this isn't personal, OK?  I would respond in like manner to anyone who writes something such what you wrote above.) Yeah, well, see, here's the thing: That kind of secrecy tends to happen when an angel tells you that if you show something to someone other than those to whom you are commanded to show it, you'll die (see Joseph Smith-History 1:42).  You don't have to believe Moroni told Joseph that; the point is, Joseph believed Moroni when Moroni told him that.  And I'm not sure why you apparently feel such a need to stick up for "poor" (my word) Sister Emma (granting, for the sake of this discussion that other people, such as Brigham Young, mistreated her).  It wasn't Lewis Bidamon's name on her lips, but rather Joseph's ... not just once, not just twice, but thrice ... when she passed from this life into the next.

I guess my attitude isn't really appreciated on this board. I wish I believed it all. I should move along. I shouldn't say anything negative regarding the truthfulness of the BoM, or the faith. I should only do that on a different board, of which I won't because there is no board like this one. 

But feel I should be faith promoting from now on. Sorry to ingest my doubts on here.  

 

[James Tunney]

6 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

(Forgive my bluntness here, Tacenda: this isn't personal, OK?  I would respond in like manner to anyone who writes something such what you wrote above.) Yeah, well, see, here's the thing: That kind of secrecy tends to happen when an angel tells you that if you show something to someone other than those to whom you are commanded to show it, you'll die (see Joseph Smith-History 1:42).  You don't have to believe Moroni told Joseph that; the point is, Joseph believed Moroni when Moroni told him that.  And I'm not sure why you apparently feel such a need to stick up for "poor" (my word) Sister Emma (granting, for the sake of this discussion that other people, such as Brigham Young, mistreated her).  It wasn't Lewis Bidamon's name on her lips, but rather Joseph's ... not just once, not just twice, but thrice ... when she passed from this life into the next.

I don't understand your condescension here. It seems obvious to the unfamiliar that not showing the plates meant that it was invented. My friend's son had an imaginary playmate when he was 4 yrs old that always seemed to leave when my friend and his wife came into the room. Now, clearly the young child made it up and admitted it when he was older. How is the plates story different from this?

[Kenngo1969]

57 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess my attitude isn't really appreciated on this board. I wish I believed it all. I should move along. I shouldn't say anything negative regarding the truthfulness of the BoM, or the faith. I should only do that on a different board, of which I won't because there is no board like this one. 

But feel I should be faith promoting from now on. Sorry to ingest my doubts on here.  

 

You're welcome to your doubts, but I'm not sure why you expect anyone to feed them.  The trouble with Pity Parties, Tacenda, is that the guest list rarely is more than one name long.  Have fun!  

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You're welcome to your doubts, but I'm not sure why you expect anyone to feed them.  The trouble with Pity Parties, Tacenda, is that the guest list rarely is more than one name long.  Have fun!  

How did you know I was holding a pity party for myself? You mind reader you.

[Kenngo1969]

58 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I don't understand your condescension here. It seems obvious to the unfamiliar that not showing the plates meant that it was invented. My friend's son had an imaginary playmate when he was 4 yrs old that always seemed to leave when my friend and his wife came into the room. Now, clearly the young child made it up and admitted it when he was older. How is the plates story different from this?

I'm not going to dignify that with any sort of a substantive response.  You're welcome to dismiss the Restoration if you like, but I think your comparing it to a four-year-old's imaginary playmate says more about you than it says about anything else.  

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You're welcome to your doubts, but I'm not sure why you expect anyone to feed them.  The trouble with Pity Parties, Tacenda, is that the guest list rarely is more than one name long.  Have fun!  

You couldn't be more wrong!  So many here love Tacenda and understand and are right there with her when it comes to her pain and feelings about the church.  She's honest and not afraid to express her pain.  I think your comment is demeaning and not very kind.

Edited November 28, 2016 by JulieM

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

How did you know I was holding a pity party for myself? You mind reader you.

Oh, I dunno.   Silly me!  You're right: I confess, I simply pulled that idea out of my ... Umm, Sorry!  I mean, I pulled it right out of thin air!  It doesn't have anything to do with anything you wrote:

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I guess my attitude isn't really appreciated on this board. [Sob!  Sniff-sniff!]  I wish I believed it all. I should move along. [Sob!  Sniff-sniff!] [Nope!  You're absolutely right!  No Pity Party there!  I don't know what I was thinking!]  I shouldn't say anything negative regarding the truthfulness of the BoM, or the faith. I should only do that on a different board, of which I won't because there is no board like this one. 

But feel I should be faith promoting from now on. Sorry to ingest my doubts on here.  

 

Perhaps people would be more willing to help you feed your faith if they felt that you, yourself, were a little less determined to feed your doubts.  Just sayin'!  

[Kenngo1969]

10 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You couldn't be more wrong!  So many here love Tacenda and understand and are right there with her when it comes to her pain and feelings about the church.  She's honest and not afraid to express her pain.  I think your comment is demeaning and not very kind.

Fine.  I'll withdraw from the discussion then.

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You couldn't be more wrong!  So many here love Tacenda and understand and are right there with her when it comes to her pain and feelings about the church.  She's honest and not afraid to express her pain.  I think your comment is demeaning and not very kind.

Julie, thanks for the support!! I appreciate that more than you know.

Kenngo and I go back a ways, I feel like he's like the older brother I've never had, as far as caring enough, even if it's a"tough love" kind of care. At least that's how I took it to mean.  

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Fine.  I'll withdraw from the discussion then.

Don't leave Ken, I made the thread go south. I'll move on to another discussion. You are fine! Julie probably read it differently than I and didn't realize how to take you. 

Now who's having a pity party?  Kidding!!

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Fine.  I'll withdraw from the discussion then.

Hey...I'd stick up for you too as I love your comments, your humor and your input.

I'm sorry if I misread your comments.  I really do mean that.  I just feel some are unkind to Tacenda and I love her honesty and find it refreshing.  I guess I'm a bit defensive and I apologize if I misunderstood you.  

Edited November 28, 2016 by JulieM

[James Tunney]

33 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not going to dignify that with any sort of a substantive response.  You're welcome to dismiss the Restoration if you like, but I think your comparing it to a four-year-old's imaginary playmate says more about you than it says about anything else.  

Right ... I guess you have every right to give condescending responses to someone like Tacenda who is having a hard time believing the unbelievable ...

[Kenngo1969]

1 minute ago, James Tunney said:

Right ... I guess you have every right to give condescending responses to someone like Tacenda who is having a hard time believing the unbelievable ...

If it's transparently, res ipsa loquitur, and ipso facto unbelievable, then I don't know why we bother having any of these discussions then.  You might fare better in such discussions if you bothered attempting to engage the substance of your opponents' arguments rather than constructing straw men which you can slay mercilessly.  But, hey!  I guess the latter's more fun!  To each, his own.  

[Kenngo1969]

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Julie, thanks for the support!! I appreciate that more than you know.

Kenngo and I go back a ways, I feel like he's like the older brother I've never had, as far as caring enough, even if it's a"tough love" kind of care. At least that's how I took it to mean.  

You know it, Sister!  

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, James Tunney said:

People made up stories and myths back then as they do now. Failure to buy into those invented myths or believe them, I guess, could be considered as ignoring them. If that is what you mean then I don't think it is a bad thing to ignore them.

What I said was quite simple and direct, James, but it requires that you actually accept authentic historical knowledge provided to us by scholarship.  Since you don't know anything about scholarship, naturally you hoot and holler about fiction when fiction is not the issue.  Here is what I said and which you insist on ignoring:

 

Quote

 

On 11/26/2016 at 10:15 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

There are a couple of problems with those assumptions: (1) they pretend to ignore authentically ancient history disclosed by scholarship and not otherwise available, and (2) they fully ignore the ancient biblical world which Bernard Gui mentioned.

 

 

[James Tunney]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If it's transparently, res ipsa loquitur, and ipso facto unbelievable, then I don't know why we bother having any of these discussions then.  You might fare better in such discussions if you bothered attempting to engage the substance of your opponents' arguments rather than constructing straw men which you can slay mercilessly.  But, hey!  I guess the latter's more fun!  To each, his own.  

My point was that you were over the top in your criticisms of someone who doesn't automatically buy into your beliefs that are frankly hard to swallow. Further, others who don't share your background, in my experience (and maybe you had investigators like I did), would have a hard time not thinking that the reason for not showing the plates was because it was a hoax. Clearly you can see how someone would think that way, right? So why the condescension? Your recent responses show how you don't like it when someone turns it on you.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, Gervin said:

You've changed the definition of 'mainstream' to fit your worldview.  The definition of "mainstream" is "the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend."  You characterize Mr. Gardner as a "mainstream" anthropologist, but would he agree that his books meet the standard definition of "mainstream" as it pertains to Mesoamerican anthropology?

Brant Gardner has his master's degree in anthropology from the State Univ of New York, and his books utilize standard, peer-reviewed mainstream anthropology.  Other LDS anthropologists do the same on a regular basis.  The same is true of Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Atheist anthropologists throughout the world.  Since you don't know anything about anthropology, Gervin, that may not make any sense to you.  You are too busy choosing up sides and engaging in polemics.

Quote

But who's responsible for imparting knowledge to the non-Mormon (and vast majority of) anthropologists?  You certainly have a right to interpret data any way you feel led, but its incumbent on LDS scholars to insist on mainstream validation - if they believe they have a case to make.

Each anthropologist is responsible for choosing his own area of study or specialization.  Non-Mormon anthropologists tend not to be interested in Mormon Scripture, and that is understandable since there is no money or academic advancement in it -- instead there is high risk to their careers (from those, like you, who hold deep-seated prejudices).  On the other hand, denominational Christians do not hesitate to enter the field of biblical archeology professionally, and find it no threat to their academic careers.  And, of course, if one wants to stay entirely away from biblical controversies, then there are plenty of other ancient and modern cultures for the professional anthropologist to safely study.

Quote

I have a hard time connecting "agitation and propaganda operations" with mainstream mesoamerican anthropology.  Sorta telling.

Anti-Mormon agitprop has no connection "with mainstream Mesoamerican anthropology."  Like PsyWar, it is simply directed by haters at the object of their irrational contempt.  Any evil and despicable means to an end -- the destruction of Mormonism.  For that purpose any falsehood is worth repeating.

 

Edited November 28, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Kenngo1969]

13 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

My point was that you were over the top in your criticisms of someone who doesn't automatically buy into your beliefs that are frankly hard to swallow. Further, others who don't share your background, in my experience (and maybe you had investigators like I did), would have a hard time not thinking that the reason for not showing the plates was because it was a hoax. Clearly you can see how someone would think that way, right? So why the condescension? Your recent responses show how you don't like it when someone turns it on you.

I don't expect anyone to "automatically buy into ... beliefs that are frankly hard to swallow."  However, the best arguments, in my view, are those which make some effort to understand why someone believes as he does, even if an interlocutor doesn't share those beliefs, without dismissing such beliefs a priori. (Here's a hint: Comparing the events of the Restoration to a four-year-old's imaginary friend doesn't clear that threshold. )  While I don't have any issue, generally speaking, with someone who, e.g., empathizes with Emma Smith, as Tacenda clearly does, I do have an issue with her if she does so by attempting to invent marital discord between Joseph and Emma in an effort to bolster her position rather than considering the available evidence, such as the fact that Emma uttered Joseph's name three times right before she exited mortality.

[Kenngo1969]

Note:  It's past my bedtime.  If anyone wonders why I'm ignoring him or her, it's because I'm sleeping.  I'll check back in tomorrow.  Nighty-night!

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Gervin said:

Which is why I'm glad God, through Bob, cleared up some questions about salvation:

"Nobody to rescue me
Nobody would dare
I was going down for the last time
But by His mercy I’ve been spared
Not by works
But by faith in Him who called
For so long I’ve been hindered
For so long I’ve been stalled

I’ve been saved"

http://bobdylan.com/songs/saved/

I'm also thankful for these lyrics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGxjIBEZvx0

I didn't say that God gave Dylan those or any other lyrics, but that Dylan himself made that claim.  Creative people often cannot explain where their creativity comes from.  It could as well be that creativity comes from the non-discursive hemisphere of the brain -- which is what neuroscience in fact tells us -- and that it would be normal for a creative person not to be consciously aware of the source of his creative powers.  The crucial part of the equation you leave out is that such creative powers have not in fact been shown to provide information which could not otherwise be known until after the fact.