The State of Mormon Apologetics

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I might still give it a try, I haven't read anything by Sheri Dew before, but I suspect she was writing for a more orthodox audience. 

By all means, read the book if you are interested. 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I laid out my thoughts on this topic back in 2016.  See here.  A bit too long to quote.

Thanks,

-Smac

I remember that. I suppose it depends on what Jesus thinks and how He judges people. I've always had a problem with the idea that salvation requires absolute doctrinal purity. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

That boundaries are subjective and interpreted differently is all I'm pointing out.  Again, you seem stuck in the idea that your perception of doctrine is the truth and that other perspectives are false, that was the binary view I commented on earlier. 

I really don't think Scott carries such a binary view of things.  Rather, I think he would probably subscribe to something along the lines of what Ben Shapiro said here:

Quote

Oprah Winfrey talked about having "your truth" on Sunday during her acceptance speech when she won a lifetime achievement award in the 75th Golden Globe Awards, which prompted The Daily Wire's Ben Shapiro to quickly correct her inaccurate statement.

"I want to say that I value the press more than ever before as we try to navigate these complicated times, which brings me to this: What I know for sure is that speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we all have," Winfrey said halfway through her speech.

Shapiro responded: "There is no such thing as 'your truth.' There is the truth and your opinion."

Yep.

I'll let Scott speak for himself.  For me, I don't presume to have a totally-correct and pristine grasp of "the truth" as regarding the LDS Church.  But there are some core "truth claims" within it, and our proximity to accepting those truth claims matters.  It's not a binary thing.  It's usually a matter of degree.

But sometimes we can, with some real confidence, speak of "false doctrine."  This is why Amasa Lyman was excommunicated.  While serving as an apostle and as a member of the presidency of the Church's European Mission, he "preached a sermon in Dundee, Scotland, which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ," a concept he continued to preach years later even after being corrected and after he apologized for it.  He was subsequently released as an apostle, and within a few years was affiliating with an apostate sect, and was then excommunicated (his membership and status as an apostle were posthumously reinstated).

Surely we can agree that a publicly-preached sermon in which the speaker - an apostle, no less - "all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ" can be confidently understood to be "false doctrine."  Do you concur?

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t know that I would trust your cherry picking of quotes, and I don’t look forward to the task of contxtualizing them when you do, so I’d just as soon you not bother. The book, to my knowledge, is still in print, so let those who are interested get a copy and come their own conclusions. 

Hmmm. Basically you challenged Analytics to back up his assertion, and now you're saying he'll just take things out of context, so he shouldn't bother. Kind of an anti-CFR.

[blueglass]

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

Elder Jeffery R. Holland

The whole talk is pretty interesting.  He leaves no  wiggle room.

"let’s not have any bizarre middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy’s imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to take—morally, literarily, historically, or theologically."

OK, looks like Elder Holland is a staunch tight translation guy.  Neon letters appearing on the brown seer stone.  The seer stone has an embedded camera - reads Joseph's facial features, turns on the screen, and Joseph just reads off the brightly lit letters of the screen in the same manner in which Elder Holland reads the teleprompter to give this talk.   God essentially throws on Joseph's visual cortex a neural-lace or augmented reality vision.  

  

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by blueglass

[Exiled]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whether it ever does disagree does not alter the fact that, conceptually, it could, which is what makes it independent. 

To put it another way, for it to be dependent on the Church, it would have to be under the Church’s control, which it isn’t. 

To take an example, the Church does not (to my knowledge) dictate to FairMormon whom it may include on the speakers lineup for its yearly conferences. Were FairMormon not indpendent, the Church would be entitled to do so. 

I don't think conceptual independence is really independence unless exercised and I don't see Fair taking any views contrary or even different from the church any time soon.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Exiled

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I really don't think Scott carries such a binary view of things.  Rather, I think he would probably subscribe to something along the lines of what Ben Shapiro said here:

Yep.

I'll let Scott speak for himself.  For me, I don't presume to have a totally-correct and pristine grasp of "the truth" as regarding the LDS Church.  But there are some core "truth claims" within it, and our proximity to accepting those truth claims matters.  It's not a binary thing.  It's usually a matter of degree.

But sometimes we can, with some real confidence, speak of "false doctrine."  This is why Amasa Lyman was excommunicated.  While serving as an apostle and as a member of the presidency of the Church's European Mission, he "preached a sermon in Dundee, Scotland, which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ," a concept he continued to preach years later even after being corrected and after he apologized for it.  He was subsequently released as an apostle, and within a few years was affiliating with an apostate sect, and was then excommunicated (his membership and status as an apostle were posthumously reinstated).

Surely we can agree that a publicly-preached sermon in which the speaker - an apostle, no less - "all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ" can be confidently understood to be "false doctrine."  Do you concur?

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, you nailed my view precisely. 

And by the way, I’m a fan of Ben Shapiro. I loved when he said there is no such thing as “your truth” or “my truth.” There can only be THE truth. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I remember that. I suppose it depends on what Jesus thinks and how He judges people. I've always had a problem with the idea that salvation requires absolute doctrinal purity. 

Oh, same here.  I have what, for me, are the "core tenets" of my testimony and set of ethics and behavioral guidelines and constraints.  There are a number of issues about which I may well be holding incomplete or flawed opinions.  Perhaps even a few plainly false ones.  

For example, my present opinion is that the Priesthood Ban was not revelatory.  We simply don't know where it came from.  My current assessment of the evidence is that it was sort of an ad hoc policy that was put in place by Brigham Young.  It was not really given much attention in the early decades of its existence because the Church was focused on getting the Saints to Utah, setting up farms and communities throughout the Intermountain West, sending out missionaries, addressing conflicts with the Native Americans, dealing with the Utah War, coping with the aftermath of Mountain Meadows, fighting the feds about polygamy, and so on.  By the time its significance resurfaced (perhaps owing to questions arising from missionary efforts in Brasil, many of whose people have African ancestry), Brigham Young and his contemporaries were long dead.  The origins of the ban were, I think, never fully explained.

Now, it may be that I am correct in most or all of this.  Or I may have a few flaws in my assessment.  Or a lot.  Or I may be straight-up wrong.  I just don't know.  I'm open to correction.

Meanwhile, however, I proceed on the "core tenets."  I'm not interested in persuading others to my point of view on these things except to the extent my point of view coincides with the teachings of the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't think conceptual independence is really independence unless exercised and I don't see Fair taking any views contrary to the church any time soon.

So we get back to your earlier fallacy that an entity cannot be regarded as independent unless it contradicts the Church. Again, I say  that’s nonsense. 

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If they contradict him regarding the origen of the Book of Mormon, by definition they disbelieve him, as it is he who brought the book forth. 

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.  I believe that people can disagree with someone, who they also believe is being truthful regarding what they are expressing or feeling.  We can disagree with our leaders even now but also believe they are being sincere regarding what they are stating.   Usually when you say you don't believe someone, that gives the impression you may believe they could be lying or deceiving.  That's the only quibble or point I'm making here.    

Edited August 9, 2018 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I really don't think Scott carries such a binary view of things.  Rather, I think he would probably subscribe to something along the lines of what Ben Shapiro said here:

Quote

Oprah Winfrey talked about having "your truth" on Sunday during her acceptance speech when she won a lifetime achievement award in the 75th Golden Globe Awards, which prompted The Daily Wire's Ben Shapiro to quickly correct her inaccurate statement.

"I want to say that I value the press more than ever before as we try to navigate these complicated times, which brings me to this: What I know for sure is that speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we all have," Winfrey said halfway through her speech.

Shapiro responded: "There is no such thing as 'your truth.' There is the truth and your opinion."

Shapiro's statement sounds binary to me as well.  He doesn't seem to comprehend what Oprah or others who speak their truth mean when they make that statement.  I haven't listened to a whole lot of what he produces, a couple interviews and some articles.  He seems a little less dogmatic about some topics, but still pretty entrenched in a particular ideology from what I can see. 

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'll let Scott speak for himself.  For me, I don't presume to have a totally-correct and pristine grasp of "the truth" as regarding the LDS Church.  But there are some core "truth claims" within it, and our proximity to accepting those truth claims matters.  It's not a binary thing.  It's usually a matter of degree.

The base assumption being that there is something that exists some doctrine, some teachings that exists independent of the humans who speak these words into being.  I don't believe that.  I think everything is contextual to people and the setting they live in. 

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But sometimes we can, with some real confidence, speak of "false doctrine."  This is why Amasa Lyman was excommunicated.  While serving as an apostle and as a member of the presidency of the Church's European Mission, he "preached a sermon in Dundee, Scotland, which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ," a concept he continued to preach years later even after being corrected and after he apologized for it.  He was subsequently released as an apostle, and within a few years was affiliating with an apostate sect, and was then excommunicated (his membership and status as an apostle were posthumously reinstated).

Couldn't this also be an example of leadership roulette though.  Orson Pratt got away with arguably more than Lyman, and was never exed by Brigham over it. 

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Surely we can agree that a publicly-preached sermon in which the speaker - an apostle, no less - "all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ" can be confidently understood to be "false doctrine."  Do you concur?

I'm mostly against the practice of excommunication, I think its old world and unnecessary for all but the most extreme cases.  I think it would all depend on how that person talked about the subject.  I find metaphorical approaches to theology often very inspiring.  I've been really enjoying Peter Rollins lately, and his Pyrotheology.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rollins

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Hmmm. Basically you challenged Analytics to back up his assertion, and now you're saying he'll just take things out of context, so he shouldn't bother. Kind of an anti-CFR.

I didn’t challenge him. I just disputed his interpretation. Not the same thing. I don’t care if he tries to back it up or not, except that I don’t like it when quotes are taken out of context, which is what I fear might happen here. 

Edited August 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.  I believe that people can disagree with someone, who they also believe is being truthful regarding what they are expressing or feeling.  We can disagree with our leaders even now but also believe they are being sincere regarding what they are stating.   Usually when you say you don't believe someone, that gives the impression you may believe they could be lying or deceiving.  That's the only quibble or point I'm making here.    

We can agree to disagree, but that doesn’t change the fact that what you are saying is logically incoherent. You cannot contradict a man on a thing he declares and at the same time say you believe him about that thing. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Shapiro's statement sounds binary to me as well. 

Ah, well.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

He doesn't seem to comprehend what Oprah or others who speak their truth mean when they make that statement.  

I think he comprehends it quite well.

If I were to say "My truth is that two plus two equals nine," your response would be . . . what?  Would you accept "my truth" as being congruent with "the truth?"

Of course, many issues we run into in life are complex, such that our perspectives and ability to discern truth is lessened.  "For now we see through a glass, darkly."  (1 Cor. 13:12).  But there are surely differing proximities to truth.  

Many people dislike the current president of the United States, so much so that "Not My President!" has become a common refrain heard at rallies, protests, marches, etc.  But is this "the truth?"  Well, no.  Objectively speaking, Donald Trump really is the president of the United States.  So while "Not My President!" may be a protestor's opinion, it's not the "truth."

Hence Shapiro's point: "There is no such thing as 'your truth.' There is the truth and your opinion."

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I haven't listened to a whole lot of what he produces, a couple interviews and some articles.  He seems a little less dogmatic about some topics, but still pretty entrenched in a particular ideology from what I can see. 

Sure, he's entrenched in an ideology.  So are you.  So am I.  Most of us are.

But his point is, I think, quite valid.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

The base assumption being that there is something that exists some doctrine, some teachings that exists independent of the humans who speak these words into being.  I don't believe that.  I think everything is contextual to people and the setting they live in. 

Surely not everything.  Consider the following questions:

1. Who is the current president of the United States?
2. What is the sum of two plus two?
3. Is the shape of the earth a flattened disc, or is it spherical (an oblate spheroid, to be precise)?

There is really only one "true" answer to each of these questions ("Donald Trump," "Four" and "Spherical / Oblate Spheroid," respectively).  These answers do not change based the "context" or "the setting [people] live in."  

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Couldn't this also be an example of leadership roulette though.  Orson Pratt got away with arguably more than Lyman, and was never exed by Brigham over it. 

I'm mostly against the practice of excommunication, I think its old world and unnecessary for all but the most extreme cases.  I think it would all depend on how that person talked about the subject. 

Alas, the scriptures speak extensively of the mandate the Church has from God, which includes excommunication.  Fortunately, the Church's policy is to reserve it for only "the most extreme cases."

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We can agree to disagree, but that doesn’t change the fact that what you are saying is logically incoherent. 

 You crack me up, Scott.

It's a fact that when you express that you don't believe someone, you're giving the impression you believe they may be lying.  That's different than just expressing that you disagree.

From my experience, members who now believe the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction are not accusing Joseph of lying or intentionally deceiving.  They believe he was honestly expressing his feelings and beliefs....just as they are now expressing what they honestly believe..  

For example, do you agree with what Brigham Young believed and taught regarding the Adam/God Doctrine?  If not, does that mean you believe Brigham Young was lying or trying to deceive (or "cooked" it up) when he taught them? 

Edited August 9, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, ALarson said:

From my experience, members who now believe the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction are not accusing Joseph of lying or intentionally deceiving.  They believe he was expressing his feelings and beliefs....just as they are now honestly doing..  

Daniel Peterson created an outline of the "alternative" explanations for the Book of Mormon.  See here:

Here's my take (same link):

Quote

I think Dr. Peterson has covered pretty much all of the logical alternative explanations for the Plates.  Here's my take of the options:

1. Joseph had no plates, and his claims to the contrary can be attributed to him being a cynical (i.e., intentional, mendacious) fraud (corresponds to DCP's point A.1.a);
2. Joseph had no plates, and his claims to the contrary can be attributed to him being a pious (i.e., well-intentioned, misguided-but-sincere) fraud (corresponds to DCP's point A.1.b);
3. Joseph had no plates, and his claims to the contrary can be attributed to him being deluded (i.e., mental handicap/ illness, drug- or trauma-induced brain injury, etc.) (corresponds to DCP's point A.2);
4. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he fabricated them as part of being a cynical (i.e., intentional, mendacious) fraud (corresponds to DCP's point B.1.a);
5. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he fabricated them as part of being a pious (i.e., well-intentioned, misguided-but-sincere) fraud (corresponds to DCP's point B.1.b);
6. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he fabricated them as part of being deluded (i.e., mental handicap/ illness, drug- or trauma-induced brain injury, etc.) (no corresponding point in DCP's slide);
7. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he received them from a contemporary (or a group of contemporaries) who fabricated them (corresponds to DCP's point B.2.a);
8. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he received them from a non-contemporary (or a group of non-contemporaries) who fabricated them (corresponds to DCP's point B.2.b).

I think the weight of the historical evidence at hand makes options 4-8 substantially more likely than options 1-3.  There were simply too many people who saw the plates.  

Of the remaining options, I think insanity/mental illness (# 6 above) does not seem warranted.  Accusations of mental illness are essentially devoid of evidence.

I also think the remaining "cynical fraud" theory (#4) is not plausible.  Joseph's personal writings give no hint whatsoever to such motives.  (As Dr. Peterson noted: "One of the places you run into issues is with Joseph Smith’s writings, which are now being published, the personal writings of Joseph Smith, the Joseph Smith Papers. If Joseph Smith is not sincere, then I can’t judge sincerity in another human being.")

So that would leave essentially three options, namely, #5, #7 and #8:

• Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he fabricated them as part of being a pious (i.e., well-intentioned, misguided-but-sincere) fraud (I think the "Inspired Fiction" theory would need to be categorized here);
• Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he received them from a contemporary (or a group of contemporaries) who fabricated them (corresponds to DCP's point B.2.a);
• Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he received them from a non-contemporary (or a group of non-contemporaries) who fabricated them (corresponds to DCP's point B.2.b).

I think there are some rather substantial flaws in these, as outlined in DCP's remarks.

So the 9th option comes into play: Joseph had actual, physical, authentically ancient, plates because he received them from a non-contemporary, a resurrected being named Moroni, who led Joseph to where the plates had been buried centuries before.

So Joseph Smith "lying or intentionally deceiving" is not all.  Another option is that he was "unintentionally deceiving."  This is often called the "pious fraud" theory.

In accounting for Joseph Smith's position on and explanation of the origins of the Book of Mormon, the four options seem to be:

1. Joseph was a malicious, conniving fraud;
2. Joseph was a well-intentioned fraud;
3. Joseph was a mentally infirm fraud;
4. Joseph was telling the truth.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 9, 2018 by smac97

[Exiled]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So we get back to your earlier fallacy that an entity cannot be regarded as independent unless it contradicts the Church. Again, I say  that’s nonsense. 

Scott, you claimed the church supports "independent" voices that align with the doctrine and positions of the church. You also conceded that members are dependent. Yet, you claim that dependent members somehow become independent if they form a group that theoretically can disagree with the church, but never does.

It looks like you were overselling the "independent voices" statement.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Daniel Peterson created an outline of the "alternative" explanations for the Book of Mormon.  See here:

Here's my take (same link):

So Joseph Smith "lying or intentionally deceiving" is not all.  Another option is that he was "unintentionally deceiving."  This is often called the "pious fraud" theory.

Thanks,

-Smac

Or, he had the plates and they inspired him to write down the stories....just as some now believe took place regarding the Book of Abraham.

I know of members who believe Joseph Smith was being truthful, but that the inspired writings are fictional and never really took place.

There are other options than just concluding he was lying or was a fraud.

Edited August 9, 2018 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think he comprehends it quite well.

If I were to say "My truth is that two plus two equals nine," your response would be . . . what?  Would you accept "my truth" as being congruent with "the truth?"

Of course, many issues we run into in life are complex, such that our perspectives and ability to discern truth is lessened.  "For now we see through a glass, darkly."  (1 Cor. 13:12).  But there are surely differing proximities to truth.  

Many people dislike the current president of the United States, so much so that "Not My President!" has become a common refrain heard at rallies, protests, marches, etc.  But is this "the truth?"  Well, no.  Objectively speaking, Donald Trump really is the president of the United States.  So while "Not My President!" may be a protestor's opinion, it's not the "truth."

Hence Shapiro's point: "There is no such thing as 'your truth.' There is the truth and your opinion."

Let me try to explain, as it looks like you don't understand what that means either.  Speaking your truth is not a math equation.  Its about sharing your story.  Its a subjective truth, a pragmatic truth, a utilitarian truth.  

You may find this article interesting about Oprah and in general how speaking your truth introduces some tensions into these discussions. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/the-power-and-perils-of-speaking-your-truth/549968/

 

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by hope_for_things

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Scott, you claimed the church supports "independent" voices that align with the doctrine and positions of the church.

I think that's great.  It's an application of D&C 58:

Quote

26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

The LDS Church doesn't want its members to wait on specific marching orders from the Church.

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

You also conceded that members are dependent. Yet, you claim that dependent members somehow become independent if they form a group that theoretically can disagree with the church, but never does.

I think "independent" has a lot of connotations:

Quote

1. not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself:an independent thinker.
2. not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free:an independent businessman.
3. not influenced by the thought or action of others:independent research.
4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.
5. not relying on another or others for aid or support.
6. rejecting others' aid or support; refusing to be under obligation to others.
7. possessing a competency:to be financially independent.
8. sufficient to support a person without his having to work:an independent income.
9. executed or originating outside a given unit, agency, business, etc.; external:an independent inquiry.
10. working for oneself or for a small, privately owned business.
11. expressive of a spirit of independence; self-confident; unconstrained:a free and independent citizen.

"Not ... controlled by others"
"Not dependent"
"Not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc."
"Not relying on another for aid or support"
"Executed or originating outside a given unit, agency, business, etc."

These sound a lot like what FAIR is.

The LDS Church does not "control" FAIR. 

The LDS Church did not order FAIR's founders to get together and create it. 

The LDS Church does not finance the FAIR. 

The LDS Church does not host FAIR's events or website.

And on and on and on.

FAIR is reasonably characterized as being "independent" of the LDS Church.  That it seeks to align itself with the doctrines and teachings of the Church does not ameliorate that.

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It looks like you were overselling the "independent voices" statement.

I think your disagreement with Scott is mostly an issue of semantics.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yep, exactly.  Independent means not being aligned with church hierarchy, great point. 

How is this not binary thinking?

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Interesting, who wrote his biography, and what kind of an audience was it written to people interested in complex history or orthodox members? 

It was written by none other than Sheri Dew and published by Deseret Book. I think it is a great book that really tries to tell the full story of his life--not just a series of faith-promoting vignettes.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

How is this not binary thinking?

Quote

in·de·pend·ent

1. free from outside control; not depending on another's authority.

 

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It was written by none other than Sheri Dew and published by Deseret Book. I think it is a great book that really tries to tell the full story of his life--not just a series of faith-promoting vignettes.

Cool, that's good to hear, apparently some were skeptical about what you'd say.  I wasn't though, thanks for sharing. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Or, he had the plates and they inspired him to write down the stories....just as some now believe took place regarding the Book of Abraham.

The "catalyst" theory?  Okay.  But we're still left with the historicity issue.

Quote

I know of members who believe Joseph Smith was being truthful, but that the inspired writings are fictional and never really took place.

A popular refrain from the "Inspired Fiction" folks is that The Book of Mormon has value even if it is entirely fictional, just like the parables of Jesus need not be literally historical in order to have value.  However, I disagree with this comparison.   Parables have value irrespective of their historicity, I agree with that. However, Jesus Christ being the Son of God and Savior of the world only has value because of the historicity tied up with that declaration. Historicity matters when we consider various scriptural passages, such as this one: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Absent historicity, this passage has no salvific meaning or value. Without historicity, Jesus would be just another admirable fictional character, like Atticus Finch, or Samwise Gamgee, or Captain America. Jesus would be about as valuable to me as an imaginary life preserver would be to a drowning man.

In his article "Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon" (published in the above volume), Kent P. Jackson asks, "what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?"  He goes on (emphasis added):

Quote

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?" (Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, pp. 137-138.)

Can a person have faith in The Book of Mormon while simultaneously rejecting The Book of Mormon as to its historicity? I don't think so. Such a concept renders Joseph Smith a fraud and a liar, and the book itself a fraud and a lie. A fictional Book of Mormon has no real power, and renders it as nothing more than a quirky self-help book. It becomes no more relevant to the salvation of men than Awaken the Giant Within by Anthony Robbins or How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. These are useful books, to be sure. For some, they are even life changing. But The Book of Mormon declares itself to be the word of God through inspired prophets.

Can a person have faith in Christ while simultaneously rejecting Christ as an actual, historical figure? I don't think so. Rejecting the historicity of Christ renders Christ a fictional role model, like Atticus Finch or Gandalf. A fictional Christ has no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save.

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.

Consider the Title Page from an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view:

> THE BOOK OF MORMON - AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF MORMON

Proponents of the "inspired fiction" theory, in reading this, are compelled to say something like this: "Just kiddin! There was no such person named Mormon. He never existed. Joseph Smith lied or was deluded when he taught anything to the contrary."

> UPON PLATES TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI

Again, no dice. There was no Lehi, hence no Nephi, hence no Nephites or records of the Nephites. Hence no abridgment of these records. Hence no Gold Plates. Joseph Smith lied about these plates ever existing. Or he fabricated them and then actively deceived eleven eyewitnesses with faux relics.

Oh, and also, the Three Witnesses lied when they testified that "that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon." Either that, or God sent an angel with fake plates to deceive the Witnesses and the millions of people who have read their testimony. Conspiratorial lying and deception on a grand scale is, sadly, the only option for people who reject the historicity of The Book of Mormon.

> Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—

No and no. There were no Nephites or Lamanites. From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, these are lies and deceptions.

> Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel;

More lies. There were no Lamanites.

> and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment,

More lies. From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, Joseph Smith or one of his contemporaries wrote the book. Not Mormon or the Nephite prophets.

> and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—

From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, The Book of Mormon is a fraud and a lie, and hence could not be written "by the spirit of prophecy."

> Written and sealed up,

Another lie. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, hence nothing was sealed up.

> and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—

More lies. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, hence nothing to be hidden or potentially destroyed.

> To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—

More lies. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, ergo nothing to be translated. From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, Joseph Smith or one of his contemporaries wrote the book.

> Sealed by the hand of Moroni,

Another lie. Moroni never existed.

> and hid up unto the Lord,

Another lie. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, hence no records to be "hid up."

> to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

More lies. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, ergo nothing to "come forth" and nothing to be interpreted.

> An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared,

Lies upon lies. There were no Jaredites, ergo no Book of Either, ergo no abridgment of their records.

> who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—

More lies. There were no Jaredites, ergo no such persons were at the Tower of Babel.

> Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—

Lies. There were no Nephites, ergo no portion of the remnant of the House of Israel have the Nephites as their fathers, ergo there is nothing which the Lord did for the non-existent Nephites. Lies, lies, lies.

> And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—

From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, the Jew and the Gentile are to be convinced that Jesus is the Christ by way of a book that purports to an ancient record, but is in fact a lie and a fraud? How "convincing" can a book fraught with lies and deceit be?

> And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, how can there be "faults" in a book which is a monstrous lie? What are its faults? That it's not fraudulent enough?  From the "inspired fiction" point of view, look how many lies The Book of Mormon has piled up for itself.  

All of the above is just from the Title Page.  The "Inspired Fiction" destroys the utility of The Book of Mormon as scripture.  Ever single page of it.  This is why I simply cannot wrap my head around a fourth theory underlying the "inspired fiction" concept, which is that Joseph Smith was deluded / deceived and dishonest / fraudulent and honest / correct in his claims about the book. That makes no kind of sense whatsoever. Elder Oaks was right: "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."

Quote

There are other options than just concluding he was lying or was a fraud.

Not really.  Any theory that posits that the contents of the Book of Mormon are - as you put it - "are fictional and never really took place" is logically incompatible with Joseph Smith's narrative.

I invite you to think on this a bit:

1. If there was no Lehi, then there were no Nephites and Lamanites. 

2. If there were no Nephites/Lamanites, there were no records and prophets keeping them. 

3. If there were no prophets, then there was no Moroni. 

4. If there was no Moroni, then Joseph Smith "was lying or was a fraud [or was mentally infirm]" when he claimed to have been visited by Moroni.  See JS-H 1:

Quote

30 While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor.

31 He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.

32 Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightning. The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him, I was afraid; but the fear soon left me.

33 He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.

34 He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants.

How do you account for these verses?  As I see it, we have the following options:

Option 1: Joseph was telling the truth.  He really did see an angel.  The angel identified himself as a resurrected person named Moroni.  The angel said there "was a book deposited, written upon gold plates."  The angel spoke of "the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang."  The angel said that Jesus Christ preached to these "ancient inhabitants."

Option 2: Joseph was a malicious, conniving fraud.

Option 3: Joseph was a well-intentioned fraud.

Option 4: Joseph was a mentally infirm fraud.

So apart from Joseph telling the truth (Option 1) or being some sort of fraud (Options 2-4), what other options do you think exist to explain the origins of the Book of Mormon?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 9, 2018 by smac97