The State of Mormon Apologetics

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ultimately, the individual.  But we have scriptures, modern prophets and apostles, and the Spirit to help us.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's great to acknowledge.  I think you'll find some individuals, like myself, to be respectful of the views of others.  I've never gotten in any fights at church, when I share things I try to be gentle and respectful.  I've also never been called into a bishop's office or questioned about disrupting class.  I've attended enough meetings over the years to understand the dynamics. 

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Some things wrong?"  Like the plates not existing?  

I didn’t state that (I think he did find plates buried).

And you’re not answering about how B.Young taught doctrine as fact which was later called false doctrine by church leaders.  Was he a fraud?  A liar?  Or delusional?  

He taught them as facts, not opinions.  And he believed them so strongly that made them a part of the temple experience. 

Prophets can be wrong but still be teaching what they believe is true.  I can see how some members could apply this same logic on this subject too.

Edited August 9, 2018 by JulieM

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It could have been an old farmer impersonating an angel. 

Either way, it’s an interesting detail.

I've heard Cain is a good bigfoot impersonator. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

But her theory still requires Joseph to be a fraud.

Thanks,

-Smac

No, she never calls him a fraud. 

But her theory nevertheless requires him to be one.

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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. 

Naturalistic Theory of the Gold Plates — building on Ann Taves work (Taves proposes that Joseph fabricated the plates, then asked God to sanctify them, "to materialize them into the ancient gold plates").

Joseph fabricating the plates is incompatible with Joseph claiming that a resurrected Nephite led him to them, that they were an actual ancient record of actual ancient peoples, etc.

So yeah.  Fraud.  With God on board.

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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. 

This would make him a pious fraud, but a fraud nonetheless.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Quote

"Some things wrong?"  Like the plates not existing?  

I didn’t state that (I think he did find plates buried).

He found plates?  But these plates were not Nephite (as the "inspired fiction" theory requires since there were no Nephites)?

How do you account of Joseph's recitation of how he found the plates?  Was there an angel or not?  If yes, then Joseph Smith was telling the truth and the "inspired fiction" theory fails.  If no, then Joseph Smith lied (either fraudulently or delusionally or both).

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

And you’re not answering about how B.Young taught doctrine as fact which was later called false doctrine by church leaders.  Was he a fraud?  A liar?  Or delusional?  

CFR, please.  I'm not sure what you are referencing here.

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Prophets can be wrong but still be teaching what they believe is true.  I can see how some members could apply this same logic on this subject too.

So can I.  But that application necessarily involves Joseph Smith being a fraud or delusional or both.

Thanks,

-SMac

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

But her theory nevertheless requires him to be one.

Naturalistic Theory of the Gold Plates — building on Ann Taves work (Taves proposes that Joseph fabricated the plates, then asked God to sanctify them, "to materialize them into the ancient gold plates").

Joseph fabricating the plates is incompatible with Joseph claiming that a resurrected Nephite led him to them, that they were an actual ancient record of actual ancient peoples, etc.

So yeah.  Fraud.  With God on board.

This would make him a pious fraud, but a fraud nonetheless.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think it was Daniel Peterson who remarked a few years ago that attempts by critics to explain away Joseph Smith's accounts are like a Rube Goldberg device. They end up being so convoluted and ridiculous that one is obliged to return to the account Joseph offered as being the most plausible.

Edited August 10, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Maybe it was casual Friday. 

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm thinking an angel would be more comfortable appearing and acting as an angel than impersonating an old farmer.

 

At sometime in their existence, everyone likes to play dress up.

Mary Whitmer's experience seems to me to be midway between the 11 witnesses and the three.  She experiences more than just seeing the plates, but the context is very familiar to her and those she would share it with.

Maybe God was just providing one more variation to help deal with criticisms and questions.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Calm

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He found plates?  But these plates were not Nephite (as the "inspired fiction" theory requires since there were no Nephites)?

How do you account of Joseph's recitation of how he found the plates?  Was there an angel or not?  

He could have dreamed it and believed it all.  He may have believed he was led to the plates (he did dig for treasure) and connected the two when he found them.  All of this could be what he believed and related.  He may have believed that’s what was on the plates (what he transcribed) and that they inspired him (like some believe the Egyptian scrolls did for him with translating the BofA).  

If members believe that could happen, why not with the BofM?

I’m just saying that members can find reasons why he believed and did what he did that don’t conclude with him being a fraud or delusional.  I see this even more after talking to my Dad.

I don’t think it’s as black and white as how you’re making this.

 

“CFR, please.  I'm not sure what you are referencing here.”

I think it was President Kimball who said it was false doctrine, but I’ll look it up for you!

Edited August 9, 2018 by JulieM

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Naturalistic Theory of the Gold Plates — building on Ann Taves work (Taves proposes that Joseph fabricated the plates, then asked God to sanctify them, "to materialize them into the ancient gold plates").

Joseph fabricating the plates is incompatible with Joseph claiming that a resurrected Nephite led him to them, that they were an actual ancient record of actual ancient peoples, etc. 

So yeah.  Fraud.  With God on board.

Is a Catholic priest giving the Eucharist being fraudulent?  If Joseph had a vision and in that vision was told to create an object in order to get people to better believe the "reality" of his vision, how is this not just an earnest believer acting out their belief?  

Remember, his days as treasure seer but no actual treasure was tangibly found.  It seems plausible that Joseph felt it would be important to have a physical object this time, since no physical treasure actually was found during those earlier events.  I'm still allowing for an earnest, although complicated and flawed Joseph in this construction.  I wouldn't call it fraud, and I wouldn't call it delusion. I think there may have been elements of self deception happening for sure, but he seems so committed to his cause, and the fact that he was experiencing these revelatory flows of information, I think this made Joseph believe in his calling at a core level. 

I don't see him as a conscientious fraud in the same sense as someone trying to bilk little old ladies out of their retirement funds.  I see what he's doing as a believer that Christianity was off track and that God was calling him to put things straight, and when you're having these visions and revelatory experiences confirming your ideology and people are believing you, then things just continue to move along that trajectory forward. 

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This would make him a pious fraud, but a fraud nonetheless.

Its different than the Vogel pious fraud in that Joseph is a believer himself as well.  I think a pious fraud is more conscientious about their fraud.  This is my opinion, not trying to represent Taves or Vogel on this, as I imagine my opinion differs from both of theirs.  I think Joseph being a believer himself and having visions that he believes truly are real, not just his imagination, but that Nephites and Plates really do exist, just that he doesn't have access to them physically, but that he can access them in his mind through the spirit. 

I think this is different than a pious fraud that says, hey God wants me to create this fictional story to get people to believe in a more true religion.  I think that is the difference. 

[blueglass]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  But outside the quantum level, it is "truth."

If I have two marbles in my pocket, and I add two more marbles to that pocket, I have four marbles in that pocket.  That's "truth."

What are my other examples of "truth?" 

Who is the current president of the United States?  

Is the shape of the earth a flattened disc, or is it spherical (an oblate spheroid, to be precise)?

Thanks,

-Smac

A couple more examples of truth.

The church does not have possession of gold-like plates.

There is no stone box on the hill cumorah.  I've been to the hill cumorah, and there was no visitor's tour of the stone box where Joseph found the historical, physical plates.

There is no where I can go at the church history museum to see the historical, physical sword of laban an actual historical figure who lived in Jerusalem.  There is no where I can go to see the breastplate, or the urim and thummim prepared by the Lord for translating the plates:    “Joseph Smith received with the breastplate and the plates of the Book of Mormon, the Urim and Thummim, which were hid up by Moroni to come forth in the last days as a means by which the ancient record might be translated, which Urim and Thummim were given to the [historical] Brother of Jared [D&C 17:1]” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:223–25)."   https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-50-ether-1-5?lang=eng

There is no historical cave under the hill cumorah.  "Geologically, it is impossible for the hill to have a cave, and all those who have gone in search of the cave have come back empty-handed. If, therefore, the story attributed to Oliver Cowdery (by others) is true, then the visits to the cave perhaps represent visions, perhaps of some far distant hill, not physical events".  

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Is_there_a_cave_in_the_Hill_Cumorah_containing_the_Nephite_records%3F

The truth is that a different cave Joseph dug is physical, real, and can be explored.   http://archival.link/mormoncave/story

A witness to an artifact resembling plates (David Whitmer) said that the plates are in a different cave.  (Deseret Evening News, 16 August 1878)

Reporter: Where are the plates now?
Whitmer: In a cave, where the angel has hidden them up till the time arrives when the plates, which are sealed, shall be translated. God will yet raise up a mighty one, who shall do his work till it is finished and Jesus comes again.
Reporter: Where is that cave?
Whitmer: In the State of New York. 
Reporter: In the Hill of Comorah? [sic]
Whitmer: No, but not far away from that place. [11]

Another truth is that the church is in possession of the brown seer stone and the leather pouch Emma designed to hold it.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng

You can go buy one for 50 from this guy Bob Scholl.  .

https://reallyoldrocks.com/

You don't have to borrow a green scrying glass from Sally Chase like Joseph did in 1819 to find one.

[clarkgoble]

44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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? 

Well it's me focusing on the future not Mark. Perhaps I'm wrong, but my sense is that he's skeptical precisely because the future isn't here. I'd say that we engage in processes of verification. The future is important because we can conceive of ways to measure, test and verify things. We can make predictions of the future and more importantly how communities might interact given evidence. However because the future isn't here fallibilism becomes a major issue. Our predictions are frequently wrong. There is a different implication though with a future-focused mentality of verification I think. Those focused on communities now are most apt to just focus on normative practice and belief right now in that community. Those focused on the future will look at how evidence not yet absorbed by the community will affect the community. Now that doesn't always happen - look at how well people disregard evidence on global warming, non-GMO crops, vaccines and so forth for instance. But eventually evidence tends to overwhelm communities and they absorb them. (IMO)

Anyway, those focused on evidence and how this affects future communities are more apt to put the focus on the details of evidence and what people who can focus on such evidence say rather than the broader community. Those focused on the communities will instead tend to focus on what behaviors the community demonstrate now. That's again not absolute. It tends to be a matter of degree and focus.

Again though I don't want to, with any confidence, say what Mark thinks. I've just got him wrong enough in the past so as to not be confident. I do think we agree quite a bit more than we disagree. And many of our approaches are frequently the same. However in terms of how to evaluate religion I think we differ a great deal.

44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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?

Mark's definitely correct in that religious truths are frequently different from scientific truths. However as you note they do interact. I'd say that often this is the relationship between idealism (ideas, abstractions) and materialism (the physical instantiation or manifestation of such ideas). To me an idea that can't be instantiated materially really doesn't matter too much. So to talk about a religious truth without talking about it's material grounding is to me to deny something is real at all. Mark, again to the degree I understand him (perhaps not at all) disagrees strongly on this point. All that matters are the interpretations of the community and how they affect community and individual behavior. Materialist issues just don't matter. I'd say materialist concerns matter because they shape what future interpretations and behaviors will be. Thus that future focus again. For Mark the only material instantiation that matters is how the individual and community take the idea and act on it. To me that's at best secondary to the instantiation in evidence.

So to me religion is somewhat about meaning in the sense of the important narratives we tell ourselves but much more about future events. It matters religiously if there's life after death. It matters what God is like because that'll affect my future encounters with him and my future behavior. The structure of reality matters because that'll shape what in future I'll consider ethical or not and most importantly the processes of verification I'll engage in to determine what is or isn't ethical.

One way to consider this is to consider an example William James comes up with. Say you take an hallucinogenic mushroom. The experience is real as an experience. But we recognize that most of what we experience isn't really trustworthy as something that happened in material terms. i.e. if you see an angel when on mushrooms you probably shouldn't believe there was an angel rationally. What James is apt to say is that this experience is deeply meaningful (and I'd agree) and that all that counts is how I respond to the experience not the question and testing of the materialistic questions like whether there were really angels there. Those questions just don't matter much. To me, that's what matters the most, because there's a strong sense of mistake about hallucinations. To me the experience is just the starting point for inquiring about the material conditions of what happened. That in turn requires coming up with questions about how to test my reactions to see if they are trustworthy. That testing to ensure trustworthiness of an experience is thus key for me. That's what I mean by being future-focused. Being present-focused ends up being focused more on what the experience did to me without necessarily seeing a duty or drive to question and test my reactions.

Hope that helps and explains why I take much of the approach I do to religious questions. What we focus on just shapes what questions we ask and how we attempt to answer them. If you look at Mark and my disagreements you'll notice that often he just dismisses many of my concerns as irrelevant or not the question at all. Those processes of questioning and seeking answers just don't matter to him.

Edited August 9, 2018 by clarkgoble

[why me]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, the doctrines seem to almost be left by the wayside.

Thanks,

-Smac

This should not be surprising. We live in a moment of social issues. For the critic it is important to highlight the social especially for the millenials who tend to be liberal on many social issues. The church is swimming uphill with the proclamation on the family and on its social values.

Critics can no longer shock people with historical issues because members are much more prepared now.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

He could have dreamed it and believed it all.  

So he was deluded.  He was stating events as if they had actually happened, when in reality he had only dreamed these things.  Is that it?

But that still doesn't account for the plates.  Or the statements from the Witnesses. 

But it does affirm that point I have been making for many pages now: The "inspired fiction" theory requires us to conclude that Joseph Smith was either a fraud or delusional or both.

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

He may have believed he was led to the plates (he did dig for treasure) and connected the two when he found them.  

That contradicts the narrative he provides in Joseph Smith-History.  Whether the contradition arises from him being a malicious fraud, a pious fraud, or mentally infirm, it really doesn't matter.

What does matter, is that the "inspired fiction" theory requires us to conclude that Joseph Smith was either a fraud or delusional or both.

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

All of this could be what he believed and related.  He may have believed that’s what was on the plates (what he transcribed) and they inspired him (like some believe the Egyptian scroll did for him with translating the BofA).  If members believe that could happen, why not with the BofM?

So he was delusional.  That's your theory.  But that's my point.  The "inspired fiction" theory requires us to conclude that Joseph Smith was either a fraud or delusional or both.

Again, how do you account for the statement from the Witnesses?

How do you reconcile the foregoing speculation with Joseph's narrative in Joseph Smith-History?  They are incompatible.  We either need to go with Joseph Smith-History as it is given (which negates the "inspired fiction" theory), or else we dismiss it by attributing it to mental illness or fraud.

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

I’m just saying that members can find reasons why he believed and did what he did that does not conclude with him being a fraud or delusional.  

I don't see any further options.  Can you clarify what they are?  If the "inspired fiction" theory is correct, then there were no Nephites, no Moroni, etc.  This contradicts Joseph's narrative.  How do you explain that contradiction without attributing it to fraud or mental illness?

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

I don’t think it’s as black and white as how you’re making this.

Okay.

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

“CFR, please.  I'm not sure what you are referencing here.”

I think it was President Kimball who said it was false doctrine, but I’ll look it up for you!

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[why me]

4 minutes ago, blueglass said:

A couple more examples of truth.

The church does not have possession of gold-like plates.

There is no stone box on the hill cumorah.  I've been to the hill cumorah, and there was no visitor's tour of the stone box where Joseph found the historical, physical plates.

There is no where I can go at the church history museum to see the historical, physical sword of laban an actual historical figure who lived in Jerusalem.  There is no where I can go to see the breastplate, or the urim and thummim prepared by the Lord for translating the plates:    “Joseph Smith received with the breastplate and the plates of the Book of Mormon, the Urim and Thummim, which were hid up by Moroni to come forth in the last days as a means by which the ancient record might be translated, which Urim and Thummim were given to the [historical] Brother of Jared [D&C 17:1]” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:223–25)."   https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-50-ether-1-5?lang=eng

There is no historical cave under the hill cumorah.  "Geologically, it is impossible for the hill to have a cave, and all those who have gone in search of the cave have come back empty-handed. If, therefore, the story attributed to Oliver Cowdery (by others) is true, then the visits to the cave perhaps represent visions, perhaps of some far distant hill, not physical events".  

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Is_there_a_cave_in_the_Hill_Cumorah_containing_the_Nephite_records%3F

The truth is that a different cave Joseph dug is physical, real, and can be explored.   http://archival.link/mormoncave/story

A witness to an artifact resembling plates (David Whitmer) said that the plates are in a different cave.  (Deseret Evening News, 16 August 1878)

Reporter: Where are the plates now?
Whitmer: In a cave, where the angel has hidden them up till the time arrives when the plates, which are sealed, shall be translated. God will yet raise up a mighty one, who shall do his work till it is finished and Jesus comes again.
Reporter: Where is that cave?
Whitmer: In the State of New York. 
Reporter: In the Hill of Comorah? [sic]
Whitmer: No, but not far away from that place. [11]

Another truth is that the church is in possession of the brown seer stone and the leather pouch Emma designed to hold it.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng

You can go buy one for 50 from this guy Bob Scholl.  .

https://reallyoldrocks.com/

You don't have to borrow a green scrying glass from Sally Chase like Joseph did in 1819 to find one.

No surprises here. However, 11 people saw the plates and if we include mary whitmer, we can say that 12 people saw the plates. No one ever denied it even when they left the lds church. And emma never doubted Joseph's story. And she certainly could have destroyed the lds church if she claimed that Joesph was a fraud.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, blueglass said:

A couple more examples of truth.

The church does not have possession of gold-like plates.

Yes.

3 minutes ago, blueglass said:

There is no stone box on the hill cumorah. 

In 2018?  Correct.

In the 1820s?  No way to empircally confirm that.  There were some late testimonials given about it.  See here.

Quote

"Three of us took some tools to go to the hill and hunt for more boxes of gold or something, and indeed we found a stone box. We got quite excited about it and dug carefully around it, and by some unseen power it slipped back into the hill. We stood there and looked at it and one of us took a crow-bar and tried to drive it through the lid and hold it, but the bar glanced off and broke off one of the corners of the box. Sometime that box will be found and you will see the corner broken off, and then you will know I have told you the truth" ("The Last Testimony of Martin Harris," by E. Cecil McGavin in The Instructor, October, 1930, Vol. 65, No. 10, pp. 587-589).

In a series of interviews a Mormon writer named Edward Stevenson, who was aquainted with Joseph Smith relates what he was told by an old man living near the Hill Cumorah:

"Questioning him closely he stated that he had seen some good-sized flat stones that had rolled down and lay near the bottom of the hill. This had occurred after the contents of the box had been removed and these stones were doubtless the ones that formerly composed the box. I felt a strong desire to see these ancient relics and told him I would be much pleased to have him inform me where they were to be found. He stated that they had long since been taken away."

(REMINISCENCES OF JOSEPH THE PROPHET, And the Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon by Elder Edward Stevenson, 1893 Salt Lake City, Utah)

In 1875 David Whitmer told a Chicago Times reporter that he had seen the stone ?casket? at Cumorah three times before it was ?washed down to the foot of the hill,?(People of Paradox [New York: Oxford, 2007]

So this is a wash, IMO.  

3 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I've been to the hill cumorah, and there was no visitor's tour of the stone box where Joseph found the historical, physical plates.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

3 minutes ago, blueglass said:

There is no where I can go at the church history museum to see the historical, physical sword of laban an actual historical figure who lived in Jerusalem.  There is no where I can go to see the breastplate, or the urim and thummim prepared by the Lord for translating the plates:    “Joseph Smith received with the breastplate and the plates of the Book of Mormon, the Urim and Thummim, which were hid up by Moroni to come forth in the last days as a means by which the ancient record might be translated, which Urim and Thummim were given to the [historical] Brother of Jared [D&C 17:1]” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:223–25)."   https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-50-ether-1-5?lang=eng

Yes.

3 minutes ago, blueglass said:

There is no historical cave under the hill cumorah.  "Geologically, it is impossible for the hill to have a cave, and all those who have gone in search of the cave have come back empty-handed. If, therefore, the story attributed to Oliver Cowdery (by others) is true, then the visits to the cave perhaps represent visions, perhaps of some far distant hill, not physical events".  

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Is_there_a_cave_in_the_Hill_Cumorah_containing_the_Nephite_records%3F

Okay.

3 minutes ago, blueglass said:

The truth is that a different cave Joseph dug is physical, real, and can be explored.   http://archival.link/mormoncave/story

A witness to an artifact resembling plates (David Whitmer) said that the plates are in a different cave.  (Deseret Evening News, 16 August 1878)

Reporter: Where are the plates now?
Whitmer: In a cave, where the angel has hidden them up till the time arrives when the plates, which are sealed, shall be translated. God will yet raise up a mighty one, who shall do his work till it is finished and Jesus comes again.
Reporter: Where is that cave?
Whitmer: In the State of New York. 
Reporter: In the Hill of Comorah? [sic]
Whitmer: No, but not far away from that place. [11]

Another truth is that the church is in possession of the brown seer stone and the leather pouch Emma designed to hold it.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng

You can go buy one for 50 from this guy Bob Scholl.  .

https://reallyoldrocks.com/

You don't have to borrow a green scrying glass from Sally Chase like Joseph did in 1819 to find one.

Okay.  Could you clarify your point here?

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So he was delusional.  That's your theory. 

Again, how do you account for the statement from the Witnesses?

Not at all (to the delusional).  Many believe in their dreams or believe they’re inspirational and true.  Maybe you believe that means they’re delusional, but other members may not.  I’m just saying why some can still believe and keep attending and find reasons why Joseph believed what he did, but they believe the BofM is not factual history.

Abour the witnesses, I believe there were plates found.

Here’s the CFR info:

"We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine."  President Spencer W. Kimball 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1976/10/our-own-liahona?lang=eng

[blueglass]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

In 2018?  Correct.

In the 1820s?  No way to empircally confirm that.  There were some late testimonials given about it.  See here.

So this is a wash, IMO.  

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.  Could you clarify your point here?

Thanks,

-Smac

The book of abraham fragments were found in 1967, so i think it's possible to find this plates artifact witnesses saw and joseph showed people.  I think they really existed.  

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If Joseph had a vision and in that vision was told to create an object in order to get people to better believe the "reality" of his vision, how is this not just an earnest believer acting out their belief?  

"If."

Can I CFR you on this?  Are you just making this up as you go along?  

How do you square this stuff with Joseph Smith-History without running into the fraud/delusion problem? 

Joseph said he was visited by an Angel who identified himself as "Moroni."  The "inspired fiction" theory posits that this did not happen (since Moroni never existed).  If that is correct, Joseph is wrong.  If Joseph is wrong, then he is wrong through fraud or mental infirmity.

Joseph said the angel described "a book deposited, written upon gold plates," and that these plates gave "an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they spran."  The "inspired fiction" theory posits that this did not happen (since there were no Nephites, hence no record of the Nephites).  If that is correct, Joseph is wrong.  If Joseph is wrong, then he is wrong through fraud or mental infirmity.

The Three Witnesses testified that an angel descended from heaven with the plates and showed them to the Witnesses (which plates, according to  "inspired fiction" theory, never existed, since there were never any Nephites to create them).  This time we have fraud or mental infirmity times three.

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Remember, his days as treasure seer but no actual treasure was tangibly found.  It seems plausible that Joseph felt it would be important to have a physical object this time, since no physical treasure actually was found during those earlier events.  I'm still allowing for an earnest, although complicated and flawed Joseph in this construction.  I wouldn't call it fraud, and I wouldn't call it delusion.

Right.  Fraud or delusion.  That is what the "inspired fiction" theory requires.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, blueglass said:

The book of abraham fragments were found in 1967, so i think it's possible to find this plates artifact witnesses saw and joseph showed people.  I think they really existed.  

According to Joseph, the plates were returned to Moroni.

“The actual translation of the portion we now have as the Book of Mormon did not take place until between April 7 and June 11, 1829. Thereafter the plates were returned to the custody of Moroni. (Jos. Smith 2:27-65).”

Thanks,

-Smac

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

The book of abraham fragments were found in 1967, so i think it's possible to find this plates artifact witnesses saw and joseph showed people.  I think they really existed.  

Yup. While unlikely, it's possible we'll find more parts of the Joseph Smith papyri. I vaguely remember a story from ten years ago that small fragments were found near source - I can try and find it if anyone's interested. As I recall they weren't too useful for much but suggests traces of evidence often persist in unexpected ways. Don Bradley's work on the 116 pages is an other example of that. While I doubt we'll find the 116 pages it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Of course a skeptic tends to see the artifact witnesses and people who saw the angels as more having induced experiences. Thus their emphasis on "an eye of faith" and other such terminology. In other words it's an example of mass hysteria as the term used to go. (All apologies for using it - I know the problems people have with the term hysteria given its etymology and history)

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

There is no stone box on the hill cumorah.  I've been to the hill cumorah, and there was no visitor's tour of the stone box where Joseph found the historical, physical plates.

[...]

There is no historical cave under the hill cumorah.  "Geologically, it is impossible for the hill to have a cave, and all those who have gone in search of the cave have come back empty-handed. If, therefore, the story attributed to Oliver Cowdery (by others) is true, then the visits to the cave perhaps represent visions, perhaps of some far distant hill, not physical events".  

There were and are man-made caves in the area though. I don't think we should assume the cave is geological in formation. AS you noted one is a cave critics tend to assume Joseph dug on Miner's Hill. An other one was a cave found by a film crew about 8 years or so ago on Cumorah although I'm not sure there are pictures of that. (There are pictures but I believe they didn't want to create controversy since no one thought it was related to the Book of Mormon. There's suggestions it's a cave from Prohibition days although I don't know of any formal archaeological investigation. 

Overall though I'm pretty skeptic the narratives of the caves in Cumorah are about our Cumorah in New York. (I should note this is also a problem with the Heartland model IMO) Most of the accounts of the cave are from after Joseph's death. So there's an inherent question of accuracy. Many of them are third or second hand accounts. I can of course understand why some would see this as evidence of everything being visionary and not real though. As SMac notes, there's also some late accounts suggesting the cave wasn't Cumorah as earlier accounts noted. (Thus the interest in the cave in Miner's Hill)

Edited August 10, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

 

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

The truth is that a different cave Joseph dug is physical, real, and can be explored.   http://archival.link/mormoncave/story

 

From the website:  "This cave may have originally been dug by Joseph Smith, Jr."

 

[hope_for_things]

50 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well it's me focusing on the future not Mark. Perhaps I'm wrong, but my sense is that he's skeptical precisely because the future isn't here. I'd say that we engage in processes of verification. The future is important because we can conceive of ways to measure, test and verify things. We can make predictions of the future and more importantly how communities might interact given evidence. However because the future isn't here fallibilism becomes a major issue. Our predictions are frequently wrong. There is a different implication though with a future-focused mentality of verification I think. Those focused on communities now are most apt to just focus on normative practice and belief right now in that community. Those focused on the future will look at how evidence not yet absorbed by the community will affect the community. Now that doesn't always happen - look at how well people disregard evidence on global warming, non-GMO crops, vaccines and so forth for instance. But eventually evidence tends to overwhelm communities and they absorb them. (IMO)

Anyway, those focused on evidence and how this affects future communities are more apt to put the focus on the details of evidence and what people who can focus on such evidence say rather than the broader community. Those focused on the communities will instead tend to focus on what behaviors the community demonstrate now. That's again not absolute. It tends to be a matter of degree and focus.

Again though I don't want to, with any confidence, say what Mark thinks. I've just got him wrong enough in the past so as to not be confident. I do think we agree quite a bit more than we disagree. And many of our approaches are frequently the same. However in terms of how to evaluate religion I think we differ a great deal.

Thanks, I got your descriptions confused.  So I think focus on the future is a good thing to a certain extent as long as its balanced with the needs of the present.  Of all the species on earth, this ability to conseptualize the future may be a somewhat unique trait that humans have adapted to, and I think it may give us significant advantage evolutionarily speaking.  

From a truth perspective though, I think we can use evidence to help us predict things, including our understanding of history and trends using probability we could model things out.  Unfortunately like you mention our track record for accuracy on the specifics is wanting.  

57 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Mark's definitely correct in that religious truths are frequently different from scientific truths. However as you note they do interact. I'd say that often this is the relationship between idealism (ideas, abstractions) and materialism (the physical instantiation or manifestation of such ideas). To me an idea that can't be instantiated materially really doesn't matter too much. So to talk about a religious truth without talking about it's material grounding is to me to deny something is real at all. Mark, again to the degree I understand him (perhaps not at all) disagrees strongly on this point. All that matters are the interpretations of the community and how they affect community and individual behavior. Materialist issues just don't matter. I'd say materialist concerns matter because they shape what future interpretations and behaviors will be. Thus that future focus again. For Mark the only material instantiation that matters is how the individual and community take the idea and act on it. To me that's at best secondary to the instantiation in evidence.

I think I might agree more with Mark on this part.  I’m not sure the material matters when it comes to religious truths.  I’m thinking about anthopologists and their observations of native cultures that believe in things like voodoo.  In some cases their belief is so strong that it is manifest in very phsical ways, including severe illnesses and even alterations of their bodies.  I don’t believe any of it is magic, but I do think this shows that the boundaries between what we believe in our mind and making that thing real in a material sense don’t always exist in the way that we expect. 

What things like this make me wonder is if the material even really matters that much when it comes to religious conviction.  Now, I’m a person who doesn’t believe in a being that created and manages the universe.  However, I have had transcendent experiences that I can’t explain and that brought meaning to my life.  I don’t think they were supernatural at all, and I don’t think they were a deity pulling strings on anyone’s behalf, yet I still think there was something special about these experiences even if they were just coincidences.  They were special to me, so that is where my belief comes in.  Does it matter if something really happened through an action of an external force or though coincidence?  I don’t think it does.  It’s special to me and influenced my life in a way that I perceive as positive.  I think all that really matters is the story I tell myself about the experience.  I don’t think anything material connected to this story matters.  

And as far as shaping the future, that is done when I share these stories with my friends and family.  It shapes the future.  I’m creating a future by sharing my narrative.  It doesn’t matter if that narrative is based on anything factually accurate.  It’s my reality, and if people find it inspiring they will perpetuate this reality into existence by spreading it to others.  In this way, we’re taking something that isn’t factually and historically accurate, and creating narratives that have a real impact on our spheres of influence, and in some way are making these abstractions into something almost material.  The reason I say almost material is I’m wondering if you would consider a religion material. Would a theology that has a following of tangible people and buildings be something that is material?  The buildings certainly are, and the bodies of the people are.  They are tied together in community by their shared beliefs and values and they get these beliefs and values from the narrative that they share.  So in some sense an idea started as something immaterial and grew into something material.  What do you think?  

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

So to me religion is somewhat about meaning in the sense of the important narratives we tell ourselves but much more about future events. It matters religiously if there's life after death. It matters what God is like because that'll affect my future encounters with him and my future behavior. The structure of reality matters because that'll shape what in future I'll consider ethical or not and most importantly the processes of verification I'll engage in to determine what is or isn't ethical.

I totally agree that these things would matter if they are true about the future, but we can’t really know anything about them.  Science hasn’t told us anything about an after life or God, so we don’t have empirical evidence.  All we have is the narrative that we’ve been handed from tradition.  And I would argue this narrative is just as I described above.  It’s based on the experiences and imagination of humans in our past and has evolved over time into the package we’ve been handed.  As for ethics that is something we all judge based on our experience and our culture, and all that is informed by our collective narratives.  But these things are constantly in flux.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

One way to consider this is to consider an example William James comes up with. Say you take an hallucinogenic mushroom. The experience is real as an experience. But we recognize that most of what we experience isn't really trustworthy as something that happened in material terms. i.e. if you see an angel when on mushrooms you probably shouldn't believe there was an angel rationally. What James is apt to say is that this experience is deeply meaningful (and I'd agree) and that all that counts is how I respond to the experience not the question and testing of the materialistic questions like whether there were really angels there. Those questions just don't matter much. To me, that's what matters the most, because there's a strong sense of mistake about hallucinations. To me the experience is just the starting point for inquiring about the material conditions of what happened. That in turn requires coming up with questions about how to test my reactions to see if they are trustworthy. That testing to ensure trustworthiness of an experience is thus key for me. That's what I mean by being future-focused. Being present-focused ends up being focused more on what the experience did to me without necessarily seeing a duty or drive to question and test my reactions.

Ok, but the mushroom experience would be different if the person giving you the mushroom told you that by taking it you’d be transported into a state where you could see things in the future and see the world as it truly is.  Then you might expect an angelic encounter is more than just your imagination, and couple that with the power these experiences have on their participants, it would mean a lot more.  That is what I think religion is doing.  It’s telling you that the experiences you’re having aren’t just your imagination, but are real experiences with real other worldly beings.  Because of those starting assumptions then you give more value intellectually to the strong emotional experiences you have in religion.  Either way, with the mushrooms or the religious mystical experience you have strong emotions, but the religious experiece you have a narrative to explain that what you’re experiencing is special.  I think the experiences are the same though.  

I don’t understand how you can test these experiences in any objective sense.  Confirmation bias seems to be unavoidable.  

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Hope that helps and explains why I take much of the approach I do to religious questions. What we focus on just shapes what questions we ask and how we attempt to answer them. If you look at Mark and my disagreements you'll notice that often he just dismisses many of my concerns as irrelevant or not the question at all. Those processes of questioning and seeking answers just don't matter to him.

I try to read all your interactions with Mark and I really enjoy them.  I think he gets to impatient with you often, and I wish he’d engage in more of an exchange of ideas instead of getting frustrated and impatient.  I appreciate these very much, thanks for sharing with me.  

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"If."

Can I CFR you on this?  Are you just making this up as you go along?  

How do you square this stuff with Joseph Smith-History without running into the fraud/delusion problem? 

Joseph said he was visited by an Angel who identified himself as "Moroni."  The "inspired fiction" theory posits that this did not happen (since Moroni never existed).  If that is correct, Joseph is wrong.  If Joseph is wrong, then he is wrong through fraud or mental infirmity.

Joseph said the angel described "a book deposited, written upon gold plates," and that these plates gave "an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they spran."  The "inspired fiction" theory posits that this did not happen (since there were no Nephites, hence no record of the Nephites).  If that is correct, Joseph is wrong.  If Joseph is wrong, then he is wrong through fraud or mental infirmity.

The Three Witnesses testified that an angel descended from heaven with the plates and showed them to the Witnesses (which plates, according to  "inspired fiction" theory, never existed, since there were never any Nephites to create them).  This time we have fraud or mental infirmity times three.

Right.  Fraud or delusion.  That is what the "inspired fiction" theory requires.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m sharing a hypothetical.  No way to truly know what Joseph was thinking.  

For JSH, I’m not sure what the problem is.  That’s a story told over a decade later that is influenced by the circumstances after they were kicked out of Ohio and Missouri, and it was written by committee.  It was an institutional narrative.  

For Moroni, I already explained my concept, it was a vision that Joseph thought was real.  Not mental infirmity or just about everyone would be committed to an institution.  Most people have dreams that they think are real, this thinking was the water Joseph swam in, and its common enough today that we should be able to understand that perspective.  

I’ve explained how my theory doesn’t fit neatly into the fraud or mental infirmity buckets from my perspective.  Please re-read my last post again as it doesn’t seem like you’re trying to understand what I’m saying as you’re not asking me pointed questions about what I said, you’re just restating this binary of fraud or delusion and I’m telling you my view is different.  

 

 

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

From a truth perspective though, I think we can use evidence to help us predict things, including our understanding of history and trends using probability we could model things out.  Unfortunately like you mention our track record for accuracy on the specifics is wanting.

I think it depends upon the topic at hand. Some things are rare events and thus difficult to predict while other things are generalities which repeat and which we can utilize. All of technology is like that. So what I find surprising is just how predictable the future is.

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think I might agree more with Mark on this part.  I’m not sure the material matters when it comes to religious truths.

Which is fine. I disagree of course. I think religion without materiality really isn't religion at all. It's kind of a motivational fiction. If none of the things in Mormonism had that material ground I just wouldn't be Mormon. What would be the point? I could find much better things to do after all Sunday morning and with that 10%.

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Now, I’m a person who doesn’t believe in a being that created and manages the universe.  However, I have had transcendent experiences that I can’t explain and that brought meaning to my life.  I don’t think they were supernatural at all, and I don’t think they were a deity pulling strings on anyone’s behalf, yet I still think there was something special about these experiences even if they were just coincidences.  They were special to me, so that is where my belief comes in.

Which is fine. I'm not sure what you mean by transcendent, but as in my example if you take LSD or mushrooms presumably you'd have such experiences well beyond what one gets in say meditation. Having never experience them I'm not sure what they're like but they do seem to affect people - especially people with past trauma - quite a bit. From my perspective though the question is what the implications of the experience are. So if I see a sale sign, I have a pretty good idea what inferences to draw. From such hallucinatory experiences, even if the feeling of transcendence and unity can be psychologically useful, it's hard to see why one should derive predictions about future experience from them. 

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The reason I say almost material is I’m wondering if you would consider a religion material

Depends upon the context. I think there's a material component to all religions but I don't think all religions claims about their materiality ought be trusted. Some religions of course embrace this. So within Buddhism for instance you have the Lotus Sutra with its famous burning house parable. To make a crass reduction that's the idea that all these "supernatural" and material claims are really just useful lies to get people to the point where the useful truths can be taught. Just as if you had a bunch of kids in a burning house you might lie to them to get them out of the house. So there definitely is that aspect in many religions across the world. But for the most part people believe many aspects of what there religion teach. The question is whether they should. And, if they shouldn't, why on earth they should care about what's left over. So even in Buddhism the highest truths to my eyes are what I'd call the materialist claims (although "material" might not be the best word for that example)

Quote

Ok, but the mushroom experience would be different if the person giving you the mushroom told you that by taking it you’d be transported into a state where you could see things in the future and see the world as it truly is.  Then you might expect an angelic encounter is more than just your imagination, and couple that with the power these experiences have on their participants, it would mean a lot more.  That is what I think religion is doing.

Right. And I'm saying we'd be better off not believing such lies. I don't care if they're helpful in the short term - they're dangerous and counterproductive in the long term.

I think truth - in the sense of that tie to future experience - is always better than lies.

But clearly not everyone agrees. (Thus the Lotus Sutra)