The State of Mormon Apologetics

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Joseph Smith really was visited by Moroni?  

Or dreamed it and believed it was real (which means he told the truth when he talked about it.) 

I think that’s why people can believe both (Joseph was truthful but the BofM is fictional) along with believing that Joseph just got a few things wrong (but was still being truthful).

What’s weird is that I just had this conversation with my Dad last Sunday when he came over for dinner.  I had no idea he no longer believed the BofM was actual true history!  He’s a past Bishop and a High Counselman now.  But we started talking about a story about Nephi and it led to him sharing what he believes.

He still believes Joseph was a Prophet and restored the true gospel.  Just that he got some things wrong, was human and made mistakes like all Prophets have done.  I know my Dad definitely does not believe Joseph was a fraud.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From my perspective, that's like saying "It's a choice to accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God, despite the fact that he never existed and was just the figment of someone's imagination."

Precisely: from your perspective. 

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

From my perspective, it's a choice to accept the Book of Mormon on faith, despite its lack of historicity. It would be difficult for me to pull that off, but I applaud people who choose to have faith, despite what they have concluded about the evidence. 

That's a fair point. I think the position is somewhat incoherent - but that's not necessarily a bad place to be if they're exercising faith and hope they'll understand it one day.

26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm just wondering what the big deal is, though it might make Gospel Doctrine a little more interesting if stuff like this came up. The only way someone would succumb to "faith-destroying criticisms" would be that they were unnecessarily wedded to a rigid historicity. If you don't care whether the book is historical or not, you're not going to be bothered by horses and steel, for instance. 

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If it isn't pertinent to one's salvation, then why would it be anathema in church meetings?

Lots of things not pertinent are inappropriate in church. Especially if they're apt to create conflict, anger and hurt feelings.

 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Or dreamed it and believed it was real (which means he told the truth when he talked about it.) 

I think that’s why people can believe both (Joseph was truthful but the BofM is fictional) along with believing that Joseph just got a few things wrong (but was still being truthful).

What’s weird is that I just had this conversation with my Dad last Sunday when he came over for dinner.  I had no idea he no longer believed the BofM was actual true history!  He’s a past Bishop and a High Counselman now.  But we started talking about a story about Nephi and it led to him sharing what he believes.

He still believes Joseph was a Prophet and restored the true gospel.  Just that he got some things wrong, was human and made mistakes like all Prophets have done.  I know my Dad definitely does not believe Joseph was a fraud.

Well, keep working on him, and someday that last domino will fall.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

That's a fair point. I think the position is somewhat incoherent - but that's not necessarily a bad place to be if they're exercising faith and hope they'll understand it one day.

Lots of things not pertinent are inappropriate in church. Especially if they're apt to create conflict, anger and hurt feelings.

Fair enough. I've just never seen this come up, even once, in a church meeting. 

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, but it necessarily requires a rejection of the "inspired fiction" theory.  If Joseph Smith was telling the truth, then the Book of Mormon was not fictional.

Joseph obviously believed the events actually happened, so he was telling the truth about what he believed.

If it turns out those event didn’t really happen, Joseph was still telling the truth and not lying.  So it doesn’t “necessarily” require rejecting the “inspired fiction” theory.

 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Or dreamed it and believed it was real (which means he told the truth when he talked about it.) 

Did he dream up the plates, too?

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think that’s why people can believe both (Joseph was truthful but the BofM is fictional) along with believing that Joseph just got a few things wrong (but was still being truthful).

Okay.

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

What’s weird is that I just had this conversation with my Dad last Sunday when he came over for dinner.  I had no idea he no longer believed the BofM was actual true history!  He’s a past Bishop and a High Counselman now.  But we started talking about a story about Nephi and it led to him sharing what he believes.

He still believes Joseph was a Prophet and restored the true gospel.  Just that he got some things wrong, was human and made mistakes like all Prophets have done.  I know my Dad definitely does not believe Joseph was a fraud.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, JulieM said:

Quote

No, but it necessarily requires a rejection of the "inspired fiction" theory.  If Joseph Smith was telling the truth, then the Book of Mormon was not fictional.

Joseph obviously believed the events actually happened, so he was telling the truth about what he believed.

His explanation of the origins of the Book of Mormon was not about "what he believed," but about what he experienced.

As an attorney, I occasionally have to interview a witness.  When I do, I don't ask about what they believe.  I ask about what they saw and heard.

If Joseph Smith's narrative is not congruent with reality, then he is either a liar or deluded.  He claims to have seen Moroni.  He claims to have physically possessed authentically ancient gold plates.  These, for him, were statements of fact, not belief.

Just now, JulieM said:

If it turns out those event didn’t really happen, Joseph was still telling the truth and not lying.  So it doesn’t “necessarily” require rejecting the “inspired fiction” theory.

Yes, it does.

How do you account for the plates?

How do you account for the witnesses?

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Since this is a point Mark and I differ on, despite coming from fairly closely related philosophical traditions, I thought I'd link to this:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40320500?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

The opening paragraph sums things up rather well.

• Habermas takes his place in the pragmatist tradition by holding that the notions of truth and objectivity are linked to the human practice of inquiry. Very different conclusions have been drawn from this thought. Peirce himself argued that our judgements can aspire to truth - a judgement would be true if it would be agreed upon at the end of a sufficiently pursued inquiry. Richard Rorty's brand of pragmatism, on the other hand, concludes that we ought to abandon the notions of truth and objectivity and replace them with a notion of justification relative to one group of inquirers or an other. Habermas sides with Peirce in this debate. We can help ourselves to a concept of truth - it is what could be agreeable to all in an unconstrained discussion or inquiry.

Thanks this is interesting even if a little over my head.  I appreciate it. 

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

But of course this position has serious religious implications. As you say, Joseph in this scenario is self-deceived. In which case the religious value of the text becomes seriously constrained. There are rather strong implications for the nature of God, the nature of prayer, and even questions about whether there is an afterlife. Most of the basic tenets of Mormonism come under severe and perhaps unrecoverable strain. Perhaps the text is religious, but it's a religious disconnected from what Mormons typically think of religion. Further the epistemological question of how we draw truth from the text becomes highly problematicized. At best one ends up with religion more as say Fowler's stages of faith has it - a religion without content except towards vague ethical motivations. 

Which is fine for some people of course. But I do think for many and perhaps most people that's not really religion anymore.

In some ways it a radical departure from traditional religious ideas, but how traditional are they really anyway?  Theologians have been grappling with these things for many years before I ever came along.  I don't think it would make Mormonism unrecoverable at all though, and it relieves the growing tension between a supernatural world view and the secular.  I think those things are incompatible with more conservative religious theological paradigms. 

The trajectory the world needs to go in my opinion is away from irrational thought and superstition, and embracing the empirical and the scientific.  This doesn't mean a rejection of mystery and awe and spirituality.  I find a lot of truth in Mormonism and Christianity as a metaphor.  I know that for most people in the traditional mindset, they can't comprehend this, it sounds too radical to their ears.  They can't even imagine any value in religion in the terms that I've described.  Yet I'm here and I'm telling you I still find value there.  I mentioned Peter Rollins earlier because I really like things he's doing.  I also like Mike McHargue and the work he does with the Liturgists Podcast and as Science Mike.  I even like some of Jordan Peterson's approach religiously, even though some of his other positions are problematic to me. 

 

 

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Did he dream up the plates, too?

Okay.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

I guess I'm coming from this as someone who thinks the evidence against historicity is pretty overwhelming. Suppose I were a believer and a fellow member came to me and said they had looked long and hard at the evidence and had, after much prayer and pondering, concluded the Book of Mormon does not reflect an ancient history but is a modern production. Am I going to waste my time shoveling Fair articles at them, or tell them to leave the church, or encourage them to continue to develop faith in the things they do believe?

Edited August 9, 2018 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I guess I'm coming from this as someone who thinks the evidence against historicity is pretty overwhelming.

I don't think the evidence is "overwhelming" either way.  On balance, though, I'd say it's "whelming."  But in favor of historicity.

Just now, jkwilliams said:

If I were a believer and a fellow member came to me and said they had looked long and hard at the evidence and had, after much prayer and pondering, concluded the Book of Mormon does not reflect an ancient history but is a modern production. Am I going to waste my time shoveling Fair articles at them, or tell them to leave the church, or encourage them to continue to develop faith in the things they do believe?

I would continue to welcome them in fellowship, treat them with kindness, and offer what input and advice on this issue as they solicit or as otherwise may be appropriate.

Let's re-frame this: "If I were a believer and a fellow member came to me and said they had looked long and hard at the evidence and had, after much prayer and pondering, concluded that Jesus Christ either never existed or was just a regular person with some interesting things to say, and that he was not the Son of God.  Am I going to waste my time shoveling Fair articles at them, or tell them to leave the church, or encourage them to continue to develop faith in the things they do believe?"

Again, I would continue to welcome them in fellowship, treat them with kindness, and offer what input and advice on this issue as they solicit or as otherwise may be appropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Fair enough. I've just never seen this come up, even once, in a church meeting. 

Same here.

I suspect it's seen as too taboo a theory.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How do you account for the plates?

How do you account for the witnesses?

Thanks,

-Smac

The plates could have still existed.  Of course (I think others found plates too, didn’t they?)

Joseph may have firmly believed he was inspired by them to write the history of the man who came to him. So he was relating what he believed.

I’m not saying I believe that, but it could certainly be true and Joseph would not be a fraud as you seem to say he’d have to be.

Just sayin 

Edited August 9, 2018 by JulieM

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The JSP doesn't represent all the materials the church has, they are selectively releasing materials, but it is a step forward in a good direction, but doesn't represent total transparency. 

Your assertion "The Essays have been specifically explained as deliberately formulated to "inoculate" members against the depredations of the anti-Mormons." isn't accurate, but instead of answering my question and substantiating your point, you just ignore it.  Then you jump to accusing me of not carefully reading, without actually pointing out anything that I've misread.  This kind of exchange is condescending and disrespectful, and I would appreciate it if you'd stop it. 

You specifically stated that the Essays were not designed to tell everything, which I had not claimed at all.  Why are you ignoring your error?  I did not say that the Church was totally transparent, and I have even argued on this board in the past for full disclosure of Church finances.  I was speaking of historical matters, which you already knew was the context of this discussion.  Why do you misread and misstate what I have said?  And then you hector me for my imaginary crimes?

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm calling this complete bogus.  I think the openness is greater than in the past in certain respects, but its definitely not unlimited access, no way.  Think of Michael Quinn's recent book on corporate finances of the church.  He's definitely not an ANTI as you like to use that slur so much, and he didn't have access to the recent finances of the church, which he would have loved to use for his book I'm sure, he had to rely on notes from when he did have greater access back in the Camelot years. 

Aside from the fact that I like him, I don't consider Mike an anti-Mormon.  You seem unaware of his testimony of the Book of Mormon as authentic, for example, which seems to anger anti-Mormons.  Mike is an excellent historian.  You should pay closer attention to what he and I in fact say, before declaring something "bogus."

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm familiar with the four volume narrative history, and I'm familiar with church leaders using the term inoculate, I don't think I've heard the term immunize, I guess that's a similar term, and I've never heard someone state they would immunize/inoculate against anti-Mormons.  So if he did say those words explicitly I would like to see them in writing when his comments become available. 

Its odd to me that they would think this new narrative history will help inoculate people. 

I can't help it that Dr. Steven Harper said that.  He clearly believes it, and I agree with him.  You are not required to believe it, but it is  very clear that he is speaking knowledgeably and accurately -- and that this is the express intent of LDS authorities.

FairMormon will be publishing his address online, if they have not already done so.  He is, by the way, not the only person to have stated this about what the Church Historical Dept and the Church in general is doing.  Elders Quentin Cook, Russell Ballard, Pres Joy D. Jones, and others heading the Church (and in some Church manuals) have been saying this for some time, and in that specific language.  The idea is not new at all, and has been discussed many times on this board.

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 I've read the first four chapters available and it doesn't go into any great depth on troublesome history, its still a very positively spun tale, while more honest than narratives from the past, it doesn't come close to grappling with the implications of very complicated history and its still very apologetically written. 

Which is exactly my point (in bold), which you were denying across the board.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I don't think the evidence is "overwhelming" either way.  On balance, though, I'd say it's "whelming."  But in favor of historicity.

I would continue to welcome them in fellowship, treat them with kindness, and offer what input and advice on this issue as they solicit or as otherwise may be appropriate.

Let's re-frame this: "If I were a believer and a fellow member came to me and said they had looked long and hard at the evidence and had, after much prayer and pondering, concluded that Jesus Christ either never existed or was just a regular person with some interesting things to say, and that he was not the Son of God.  Am I going to waste my time shoveling Fair articles at them, or tell them to leave the church, or encourage them to continue to develop faith in the things they do believe?"

Again, I would continue to welcome them in fellowship, treat them with kindness, and offer what input and advice on this issue as they solicit or as otherwise may be appropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

Obviously, you and I disagree on the evidence. Do you really think the historicity of the Book of Mormon is comparable to the deity of Jesus Christ? I've never believed that. Maybe that's why the notion of "inspired fiction" seems relatively trivial to me. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Welcome ...welcome..now shut up.

This made me laugh, thanks.  But it is true to an extent.   You can be a citizen of Mormonism, just know that you're second class, you can't speak up about your views or be considered a full fledge member.  Kind of reminds me of how Women are treated in the patriarchy. 

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think it's necessarily about logic but rather about choosing to have faith. 

 

For those they might mislead with their ultimately untenable theory, logic might be indispensable.

I think it's reasonable to expect that thing in which one places faith be at least plausible or tenable.

 

Quote

 

Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief.  What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned.  Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.

 

 

 

 

-- Austin Farrer

Edited August 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This made me laugh, thanks.  But it is true to an extent.   You can be a citizen of Mormonism, just know that you're second class, you can't speak up about your views or be considered a full fledge member.  Kind of reminds me of how Women are treated in the patriarchy. 

No one's talking about being second-class. The rule is the same for everyone: Don't teach false doctrine at church.

 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, JulieM said:

The plates could have still existed.  

Okay.  Who created them?  Under the "inspired fiction" theory, there were no Nephites, so it couldn't be the way Joseph explained it.  So where did they come from?  Did Joseph fabricate them?

Was Joseph a fraud when he said he found them buried on a hillside by the non-existent resurrected Moroni?  Or was he a fraud because he fabricated them himself (or with someone's help)?

The "inspired fiction" theory requires one or the other of these.

Quote

Of course (I think others found plates too, didn’t they?)

Right.  But where did the plates that Joseph claimed to have discovered come from?  Who created them?  Where they ancient artifacts, or not?  Under the "inspired fiction" theory, they couldn't have been ancient, since the Nephites never existed.  So that means the plates were a 19th-century fabrication.  That makes Joseph a fraud.

Quote

Joseph may have firmly believed he was inspired by them to write the history of the man who came to him. So he was relating what he believed.

With respect, I don't think we can say that.  If Joseph Smith's narrative is not congruent with reality, then he is either a liar or deluded.  He claims to have seen Moroni.  He claims to have physically possessed authentically ancient gold plates.  These, for him, were statements of fact, not belief.

Quote

I’m not saying I believe that, but it could certainly be true and Joseph would not be a fraud as you seem to say he’d have to be.

Just sayin 

Okay.

How do you account for the statements of the Witnesses?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 9, 2018 by smac97

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

The plates could have still existed.  Of course (I think others found plates too, didn’t they?)

Joseph may have firmly believed he was inspired by them to write the history of the man who came to him.

I’m not saying I believe that, but it could certainly be true and Joseph would not be a fraud as you seem to say he’d have to be.

Just sayin 

One thing of intense interest I saw at last week's FairMormon Conference was a newly commissioned painting of Moroni showing the plates to Mary Whitmer.  I understand that lithographs will later be made available for purchase.  It was very novel to see Moroni dressed as an old man with white beard and a brown hat (like a farmer) sitting with the plates open for Mary's inspection.  Bob Pack was the artist:

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks this is interesting even if a little over my head.  I appreciate it. 

Basically the difference is whether truth is about what in the future we will eventually agree upon or if truth is just what any community says it is within that community. Both Mark and I might agree that in practice we can only talk about what communities say now, but Mark is more apt to dismiss that concern with the future and future evidence. Marks is also more apt to want to keep the types of discourse within different communities separate whereas I tend to want to put these types of discourse into interaction. So I'm not willing to isolate out say science talk and religious talk the way Mark is. I don't think any type of discourse can really be isolated. Ultimately Mark doesn't either (at least to the degree I dare say I understand Mark). But Marks much less willing to engage in that sort of talk than I am. For me the primary concern is evidence and how a community is apt to try to rearrange themselves to the evidence. For Mark (again being wary that I may be getting him wrong) the focus is more on what the community believes now and less on evidence.

But hopefully you can see they're actually very closely related positions. The main difference is one of focus rather than substantial content. However in practice this leads to pretty big differences in how we approach many issues.

 

 

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Or dreamed it and believed it was real (which means he told the truth when he talked about it.) 

I think that’s why people can believe both (Joseph was truthful but the BofM is fictional) along with believing that Joseph just got a few things wrong (but was still being truthful).

What’s weird is that I just had this conversation with my Dad last Sunday when he came over for dinner.  I had no idea he no longer believed the BofM was actual true history!  He’s a past Bishop and a High Counselman now.  But we started talking about a story about Nephi and it led to him sharing what he believes.

He still believes Joseph was a Prophet and restored the true gospel.  Just that he got some things wrong, was human and made mistakes like all Prophets have done.  I know my Dad definitely does not believe Joseph was a fraud.

I really like the example I shared earlier about the large number of people that believe in ghosts.  This is such a common belief in our culture, we all know people that believe in ghosts, but for those of us who don't believe do we immediately call them delusional and fraudulent?  No, I love these people and respect them.  I personally don't believe ghosts exist, but that doesn't mean I automatically consider those that do insane. 

Joseph was raised in a society that believed in the supernatural, his family did, he did, they had dreams/visions, this was normal for his world view.  Why is this so hard for people to comprehend?  Does this make Joseph a lunatic?  If so, then we are all descended form lunatics.  Does this make him a fraud?  If so then we are surrounded by frauds.  These simplistic answers do not make sense of the cultural milieu that Joseph was a part of. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Obviously, you and I disagree on the evidence. Do you really think the historicity of the Book of Mormon is comparable to the deity of Jesus Christ? 

I think the historicity of the Book of Mormon is comparable in significance to the historicity of Jesus Christ.  And I'm not the only one.  From Elder Oaks:

Quote

Elder Oaks: "There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors' declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship. ... The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived." (Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, p. 244.)

Kent P. Jackson: "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.)

I think Elder Oaks' logic is apt.

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've never believed that. Maybe that's why the notion of "inspired fiction" seems relatively trivial to me. 

It's relatively trivial to me too.  Until buying into it induces someone to leave the Church.  Then it matters.  A lot.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Welcome ...welcome..now shut up.

Hey Jeanne thanks. 

I'm eager for the day when today's false doctrine becomes true and today's true doctrine becomes false.  Maybe as the Church learns and grows it'll be more open to ideas and thoughts and not rely on dogma.  Afterall its not as if we all subscribe to so much of what the Church at one time considered true doctrine...nah so much of that is false now.  

Scott needs to set his clock.  In 40 or so years 50% of today's true doctrine will be false in the Church, and some fo that considered false will be true.  It always happens.  

[JulieM]

Just now, smac97 said:

Okay.  Who created them?  Under the "inspired fiction" theory, there were no Nephites, so it couldn't be the way Joseph explained it.  So where did they come from?  Did Joseph fabricate them?

Was Joseph a fraud when he said he found them buried on a hillside by the non-existent resurrected Moroni?  Or was he a fraud because he fabricated them himself (or with someone's help)?

The "inspired fiction" theory requires one or the other of these.

Not at all.  If he believed he was led to the plates (he was a treasure seeker by trade, so digging and searching was not something he’d never done before).  If he connected the dreams with the plates or treasure, he was being honest about what he believed.

There are explanations for all of it that are not much more difficult to believe than what you (and I) believe here.  (ie. a magic rock in a hat?)