hope_for_things Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: 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. As I mentioned earlier, I've never heard them use the term anti-Mormons in this context. But I think I'm done with our exchange, I can only handle so much condescension before I reach my limit.
hope_for_things Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: No one's talking about being second-class. The rule is the same for everyone: Don't teach false doctrine at church. One mans false doctrine is another mans truth. Who decides?
hope_for_things Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 10 minutes ago, 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. 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. I think the Ann Taves materialization theory fits well enough to answer some possibilities here.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: 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: Why would Moroni be dressed as an old farmer? (Serious question. I'm not being snarky.)
smac97 Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 1 minute ago, JulieM said: Quote 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). So he was a fraud by delusion. Is that it? 1 minute ago, JulieM said: If he connected the dreams with the plates or treasure, he was being honest about what he believed. Again, Joseph Smith's description of his experience with the origins of the Book of Mormon are statements of fact, not belief. So either what he said is congruent with reality, or it was not. If it was, then the "inspired fiction" theory necessarily fails. If it was not, then Joseph Smith was either a fraud or mentally infirm (or perhaps both). Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: Quote 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. 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. I think the Ann Taves materialization theory fits well enough to answer some possibilities here. But her theory still requires Joseph to be a fraud. Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: Why would Moroni be dressed as an old farmer? (Serious question. I'm not being snarky.) Because that is how Mary described him, iirc.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: One mans false doctrine is another mans truth. Who decides? The prophets and apostles under revelation from God. But I thought I had already made clear what I think about the my truth/your truth nonsense.
hope_for_things Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: 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: Wow, that's interesting, its a pretty painting, definitely different than Arnold Friberg style.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 Just now, Calm said: Because that is how Mary described him, iirc. I get that. I'm just asking why. (I don't dispute that he appeared this way. I'm just asking about the purpose of it. He didn't when he appeared to Joseph.)
smac97 Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: One mans false doctrine is another mans truth. Who decides? Ultimately, the individual. But we have scriptures, modern prophets and apostles, and the Spirit to help us. Thanks, -Smac 1
Calm Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I get that. I'm just asking why. (I don't dispute that he appeared this way. I'm just asking about the purpose of it. He didn't when he appeared to Joseph.) Since Mary didn't say he explained it, I am guessing your only option of finding out is to wait to talk to Moroni. Anything else would be pure speculation. Edited August 9, 2018 by Calm 1
JulieM Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, smac97 said: So he was a fraud by delusion. Is that it? Again, Joseph Smith's description of his experience with the origins of the Book of Mormon are statements of fact, not belief. So either what he said is congruent with reality, or it was not. If it was, then the "inspired fiction" theory necessarily fails. If it was not, then Joseph Smith was either a fraud or mentally infirm (or perhaps both). Nope. Never said that. You keep leaving out the possibility that Joseph was telling the truth about what he believed about the plates, but that he may have gotten some things wrong. He was also human and made mistakes. He was not perfect and we know that. (Again, I’m not saying I believe this happened, but I know some who do.) You can say that God wouldn’t have allowed that, but we don’t know that. Others have asked you about B. Young believing and teaching doctrine (as factual) that later Prophets corrected and called false doctrine. That doesn’t mean we have to come to the conclusion that B. Young lied or was a fraud, right? Or that he was “mentally infirm”? Edited August 9, 2018 by JulieM
Scott Lloyd Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Calm said: Since Mary didn't say he explained it, I am guessing your only option of finding out is to wait to talk to Moroni. Anything else would be pure speculation. Speculation is fine for my purpose here. This is a discussion board, after all. Any thoughts on the matter? Edited to add: Do we know it was Moroni? Did he identify himself to Mary? I don't recall that he did. Edited August 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Calm Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Speculation is fine for my purpose here. This is a discussion board, after all. Any thoughts on the matter? He might have wanted to move around the countryside without drawing attention to himself, Mary might feel safer with a stranger who was an aold farmer.
hope_for_things Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: 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. Ah hah! This really helps, thanks Clark. I get stuck in technical sounding language, but you dumbed it down for me here, and this is great. Thank you. I think I understand that truth is relative to communities(sitz im leben) and it seems to me that the only measuring stick we could use to evaluate this truth would be through the present. Since we can't know the future. What is this future evidentiary measuring that Mark is saying, I don't get that. How could we judge things by the future, when we can't know the future? As for science and religious intersection, I think some things definitely do interact, questions of fact, like did the plates actually exist as a tangible object, and did the person Nephi exist as historical person. However, this doesn't tell me whether the BoM is true or not, because I measure religious truth differently. In other words, I think the BoM story can be true as a narrative that isn't historical, but as a true story like a true myth, something that has powerful meaning. Religion to me is all about meaning and how it influences our lives, and I don't think any of that is contingent on historical facts. Can you help me understand this, and how you might see it differently?. BTW, really impressed with how well you interact and explain things on the message board BTW. I know we don't always agree, but I respect you and your patience. Thanks again.
jkwilliams Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I get that. I'm just asking why. (I don't dispute that he appeared this way. I'm just asking about the purpose of it. He didn't when he appeared to Joseph.) Maybe it was casual Friday. 2
smac97 Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 4 minutes ago, JulieM said: Quote So he was a fraud by delusion. Is that it? Again, Joseph Smith's description of his experience with the origins of the Book of Mormon are statements of fact, not belief. So either what he said is congruent with reality, or it was not. If it was, then the "inspired fiction" theory necessarily fails. If it was not, then Joseph Smith was either a fraud or mentally infirm (or perhaps both). Nope. Never said that. You keep leaving out the possibility that Joseph was telling the truth about what he believed about the plates, but that he may have gotten some things wrong. "Some things wrong?" Like the plates not existing? Like Moroni not existing? These are the central elements of his narrative. If he got them "wrong," then he was a fraud or deluded. 4 minutes ago, JulieM said: He was also human and made mistakes. He was not perfect and we know that. (Again, I’m not saying I believe this happened, but I know some who do.) You can say that God wouldn’t have allowed that, but we don’t know that. Others have asked you about B. Young believing and teaching doctrine (as factual) that later Prophets corrected and called false doctrine. That doesn’t mean we have to come to the conclusion that B. Young lied or was a fraud, right? Or that he was “mentally infirm”? Yet again, we are not talking about expressions of opinion. We talking about statements of fact. Thanks, -Smac 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Calm said: He might have wanted to move around the countryside without drawing attention to himself, But he's an angel. Can't he disappear and reappear and transport himself at will? Quote Mary might feel safer with a stranger who was an old farmer. This possibility makes more sense.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Maybe it was casual Friday. I'm thinking an angel would be more comfortable appearing and acting as an angel than impersonating an old farmer.
jkwilliams Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I'm thinking an angel would be more comfortable appearing and acting as an angel than impersonating an old farmer. It could have been an old farmer impersonating an angel. Either way, it’s an interesting detail.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 Just now, jkwilliams said: It could have been an old farmer impersonating an angel. Huh?
hope_for_things Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: But her theory still requires Joseph to be a fraud. Thanks, -Smac No, she never calls him a fraud. Have you read her book Revelatory Events? Or her essay a few years before that is a decent starting point, but she fleshes it out further in the book. http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/B-6-Golden-Plates-Numen.pdf The basic idea is that Joseph has personal visionary experiences that are sacred to him, and as part of these religious experiences he feels called to manufacture a physical object to represent the spiritual object he envisions. She compares this to the Eucharist for Catholics, that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus in a very real sense to the partakers. She also uses the Brother of Jared example in the BoM, with him mining stones from the earth and God touching these stones to make them sacred objects. Something that transforms the mundane into something sacred that was envisioned. I may be butchering this, but that is my over simplified take. This wouldn't make Joseph a fraud, just a sincerely religious person.
jkwilliams Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Huh? If it could have been an angel impersonating an angel, the opposite is also a possibility.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 Just now, hope_for_things said: No, she never calls him a fraud. Have you read her book Revelatory Events? Or her essay a few years before that is a decent starting point, but she fleshes it out further in the book. http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/B-6-Golden-Plates-Numen.pdf The basic idea is that Joseph has personal visionary experiences that are sacred to him, and as part of these religious experiences he feels called to manufacture a physical object to represent the spiritual object he envisions. She compares this to the Eucharist for Catholics, that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus in a very real sense to the partakers. She also uses the Brother of Jared example in the BoM, with him mining stones from the earth and God touching these stones to make them sacred objects. Something that transforms the mundane into something sacred that was envisioned. I may be butchering this, but that is my over simplified take. This wouldn't make Joseph a fraud, just a sincerely religious person. A rose by any other name ....
Recommended Posts