The State of Mormon Apologetics

[Glenn101]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

A vision that Joseph thought was real does not explain the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, why me said:

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.

You can't possibly believe this universally true, or even for the majority of members.

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

A vision that Joseph thought was real does not explain the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

Are you wondering more about the text of the BoM or the translation process?  

For the text the simple answer is similar to Alexander Campbell’s critique.  I explain it as a midrash of 19th century Christianity in the style of the KJV.  

For the translation process, i think Joseph was experiencing a flow of creative ideas that felt like they were coming from an external source.  Think of split brain studies as well as other spiritual innovators.  

[Glenn101]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you wondering more about the text of the BoM or the translation process?  

For the text the simple answer is similar to Alexander Campbell’s critique.  I explain it as a midrash of 19th century Christianity in the style of the KJV.  

For the translation process, i think Joseph was experiencing a flow of creative ideas that felt like they were coming from an external source.  Think of split brain studies as well as other spiritual innovators.  

I am wondering about things in the Book of Mormon that cannot be explained by "a flow of creative ideas." Things that just were not in Joeph's ken.

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Wow, that's interesting, its a pretty painting, definitely different than Arnold Friberg style. 

Yup.  He looks just like a New England farmer.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why would Moroni be dressed as an old farmer?

(Serious question. I'm not being snarky.)

Good question, but I have no answer.  In one account Mary merely calls him an old man.  Dan Peterson described that evidence in the Deseret News in 2013, https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865583267/Mary-Whitmer-12th-witness-to-the-Book-of-Mormon.html .  John C. Whitmer claimed that she called him "Brother Nephi," while one of my direct ancestors has Mary saying that he called himself "Moroni."  See Royal Skousen's 2014 article on this matter, https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/another-account-of-mary-whitmers-viewing-of-the-golden-plates/ .  Difficult to know which account is most accurate.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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. 

I was using the term "anti-Mormons."   The issue as you raised it was whether the leaders of the Church have deliberately been using the notion of inoculation/ immunization.  You claimed they had not.  Once again you are changing the goal posts and misinterpreting what I said.  You need to deal with the substantive issues and admit when you are wrong, instead of falsely claiming that someone done you wrong here.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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 absolutely understand this perspective. I had a 'vivid dream' just a week or so ago. In the dream, I dropped my mobile phone, and its glass back shattered. I felt really bad. It was so real that I actually thought about it the next morning and picked up my phone to check out the damage. My mobile doesn't have a glass back.

So how does one know if a dream/vision is real? Joseph gave us the pattern, though it took a fourth visit from Moroni as well as encouragement from his father. Go to the hill. Look for the rock. Pry it open and look underneath.

Honest question: if you dreamt a visit from an angel, would you make that trip up the hill, or would you already know it was just a dream? It's a bit more of an investment than simply picking up a phone.

Edited August 10, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

I am wondering about things in the Book of Mormon that cannot be explained by "a flow of creative ideas." Things that just were not in Joeph's ken.

Glenn

I haven’t seen anything compelling.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was using the term "anti-Mormons."   The issue as you raised it was whether the leaders of the Church have deliberately been using the notion of inoculation/ immunization.  You claimed they had not.  Once again you are changing the goal posts and misinterpreting what I said.  You need to deal with the substantive issues and admit when you are wrong, instead of falsely claiming that someone done you wrong here.

That’s wrong too, there is a reading comprehension problem here.  

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I haven’t seen anything compelling.  

Nor have I. Pretty much everything fits in a 19th-century American origin. 

[Kevin Christensen]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you wondering more about the text of the BoM or the translation process?  

For the text the simple answer is similar to Alexander Campbell’s critique.  I explain it as a midrash of 19th century Christianity in the style of the KJV.  

For the translation process, i think Joseph was experiencing a flow of creative ideas that felt like they were coming from an external source.  Think of split brain studies as well as other spiritual innovators.  

As you know, I disagree, at length, and in detail, with a great many footnotes, and in my review of Taves in Interpreter not so long ago.  And having read Alexander Campbell's response the Book of Mormon from 1831, it's clear to me thatthat Joseph Smith got a great many things right that Campbell was certain were unthinkably wrong, and also Joseph got many things right that Campbell could not have even imagined, he being a second generation religious leader with far more resources for education and learning than Smith who was far busier with cutting down 5000 trees and splitting rails, and fencing property, among other things.

It's easy to explain away Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon at a high level of abstraction.  "Somehow."  The tricky bit is the details, particularly details that no one noticed for the first hundred and fifty years.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Rivers]

Would it be appropriate to label the philosophic types like the Givens and Adam Miller as apologists?

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Good question, but I have no answer.  In one account Mary merely calls him an old man.  Dan Peterson described that evidence in the Deseret News in 2013, https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865583267/Mary-Whitmer-12th-witness-to-the-Book-of-Mormon.html .  John C. Whitmer claimed that she called him "Brother Nephi," while one of my direct ancestors has Mary saying that he called himself "Moroni."  See Royal Skousen's 2014 article on this matter, https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/another-account-of-mary-whitmers-viewing-of-the-golden-plates/ .  Difficult to know which account is most accurate.

According to Abner Cole, Joseph Smith Sr. described Moroni as a bearded old man (Palmyra Reflector, 14 February 1831). Fayette Lapham also remembered Joseph Sr. describing him as an old man (though he doesn't mention a beard).

Edited August 10, 2018 by Nevo

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

Would it be appropriate to label the philosophic types like the Givens and Adam Miller as apologists?

Defending a position is apologetics.  They have definite positions, imo.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

According to Abner Cole, Joseph Smith Sr. described Moroni as a bearded old man (Palmyra Reflector, 14 February 1831). Fayette Lapham also remembered Joseph Sr. describing him as an old man (though he doesn't mention a beard).

Thanks for that important info, Nevo.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

That’s wrong too, there is a reading comprehension problem here.  

O.K. If it makes you happy,  think of me as the ADD bad guy.  Should make life more pleasant for you.

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I haven’t seen anything compelling.  

 

8 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Nor have I. Pretty much everything fits in a 19th-century American origin. 

Glad you chimed in JK. Have you seen Kevin Christensen's reply above? I'll quote his last sentence:

Quote

It's easy to explain away Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon at a high level of abstraction.  "Somehow."  The tricky bit is the details, particularly details that no one noticed for the first hundred and fifty years.

Hey, we still have a few intelligent people that believe that Joseph and Sydney hacked a script by Solomon Spaulding into the Book of Moormon narrative depsite everything that is going against it. There are many things in the Book of Mormon that do not fit in a ninteenth century setting. The latest is the extensive use of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon. Then we have Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon (attested to by at least one non-LDS scholar, William F,  Albright), cement in central America, the use of which was not discovered until over a century later, Hebraic or Egyptian constructs and wordplays. Extensive use of colophons throughout the text. Those are a few off the top of my head. One can find a few things that fit the ninteenth century, but there is a panoply of things that do not. Things that no one has been able to connect with Joseph, with his knowledge base. As Kevin noted, the responses have been of the type of "somehow."

Glenn

Edited August 10, 2018 by Glenn101
Added a couple of thoughts

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

 

Glad you chimed in JK. Have you seen Kevin Christensen's reply above? I'll quote his last sentence:

Hey, we still have a few intelligent people that believe that Joseph and Sydney hacked a script by Solomon Spaulding into the Book of Moormon narrative depsite everything that is going against it. There are many things in the Book of Mormon that do not fit in a ninteenth century setting. The latest is the extensive use of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon. Then we have Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon (attested to by at least one non-LDS scholar, William F,  Albright), cement in central America, the use of which was not discovered until over a century later, Hebraic or Egyptian constructs and wordplays. Extensive use of colophons throughout the text. Those are a few off the top of my head. One can find a few things that fit the ninteenth century, but there is a panoply of things that do not. Things that no one has been able to connect with Joseph, with his knowledge base. As Kevin noted, the responses have been of the type of "somehow."

Glenn

I did read Kevin's response. I've been around apologetics, on both sides, for a long time, so it's not as if I'm unfamiliar with the arguments. It's just that, invariably, the "how could Joseph have known?" stuff turns out to be far less impressive than advertised, and I'm left with a text that looks pretty much like what you would expect coming out of Joseph Smith's day and place. There's no "somehow" about it, at least not for me. 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I did read Kevin's response. I've been around apologetics, on both sides, for a long time, so it's not as if I'm unfamiliar with the arguments. It's just that, invariably, the "how could Joseph have known?" stuff turns out to be far less impressive than advertised, and I'm left with a text that looks pretty much like what you would expect coming out of Joseph Smith's day and place. There's no "somehow" about it, at least not for me. 

If one focusses only on the thing that could have come from the nineteenth century, maybe. But that does not explain the other things that would hardly be found and were not found in any of the books authored in Joseph Smith's day, such as the things I pointed out.

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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. 

When I say transcendent, I'm essentially saying that it was something special, not an ordinary experience for me.  I've read where meditation experiences can be just as powerful as psychedelic induced meditations as well.   As for what we bring to the experience, I think that all depends on the narrative we're told of what to expect from that experience.  From what I've learned about the ayahuasca trends, many of these people really blend a supernatural almost religious meaning to the experiences.  The narratives they tell are all around how the person is communicating with the plants and the earth and getting in turn with these forces that have special insights into their lives.  So the narratives told about what you'll get from the experience seems to be very much like the narratives religion tells about religious mystical experience, and I would argue that these are just as meaningful for participants.  

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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)

Thanks for the example.  I'm not thinking that religious metaphorical truths are the same thing as lies to get people to do something, like to exit a burning house.  That is connoting some kind of master plan to religious prescriptions, and some kind of reward at the end, I don't believe any of that personally.  What I do think is happening with religious truth, is I think people have been telling stories about the experiences of their lives throughout time.  Think about the genesis of a story that you tell in your life that is meaningful to you and that you share with your family and friends.  Perhaps its the story of how you met your spouse and perhaps that story includes some remarkable, even miraculous sounding elements to it.  This story, when passed down to further generations can get exaggerated and would no longer represent the same story that you told in factual substance.  This story is then combined and compared to other stories, that is part of the transmission process.  And maybe a few hundred years from now, the story being told isn't even remotely close to the same story you experienced and told.  

I believe this is how we get our great myths, especially from cultures that primarily communicated orally.  I think the myths that are captured in early writings are a reflection of the narratives that resonated the most, and therefore were honed and fine tuned and exaggerated in ways that helped the stories to capture meaningful messages that would be beneficial for the culture.  Its almost like evolution in some sense in that the traits about a story that benefit the tribe most are the ones that survive and are passed along to the next generation.  

Now, we can't know if any of our ancient religious narratives are based on some element of historical fact.  Especially early Hebrew biblical narratives, we just don't have any corroborating evidence.  So lets just assume for a second that none of the early biblical narratives are based on any historical facts, that they are all myths that communicate meaning, but they don't have even an ounce of historical basis.  Look at all the influence that the publication of the bible has had on western culture in a little over 500 yrs.  And none of that influence has any dependence on the historicity of those stories.  Members of churches reading these stories may naively assume historicity, but whether or not the narratives were actually material at all seems irrelevant to the results of these stories on the culture.  

I would question whether materiality and historicity really matters for religious congregations.  The power in the narratives doesn't seem to change from my vantage point.   What does seem to changes is when expectations change.  When someone who naively assumed historicity comes across evidence that disproves what they thought.  This causes cognitive dissonance, but its not the fault of the narrative, its the fault of the assumption that person was operating in.  So why can't people update their assumptions and still get just as much value from the narratives?  I love reading fictional narratives and some of my favorite and the most influential stories I've read or media I've consumed I knew from the start were creative stories.  Why can't this be the same with religion?  I think it can.  

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I absolutely understand this perspective. I had a 'vivid dream' just a week or so ago. In the dream, I dropped my mobile phone, and its glass back shattered. I felt really bad. It was so real that I actually thought about it the next morning and picked up my phone to check out the damage. My mobile doesn't have a glass back.

So how does one know if a dream/vision is real? Joseph gave us the pattern, though it took a fourth visit from Moroni as well as encouragement from his father. Go to the hill. Look for the rock. Pry it open and look underneath.

Honest question: if you dreamt a visit from an angel, would you make that trip up the hill, or would you already know it was just a dream? It's a bit more of an investment than simply picking up a phone.

Hmm..  If I has such a realistic dream that I felt compelled to check to see if it was real.  I think I have before, I just can't remember an example. 

Lets say yes, I would go to the hill and if I found the rock and lifted up the stone and found something underneath that was in my dream, that would be a game changer, no doubt.  In my current skeptical mindset I would wonder if I hadn't already visited that hillside before, and just forgot, and I would question the reality of what was happening to try and find an explanation that works for my world view.  But if I couldn't find any satisfactory answers that blended with my world view, I'm sure I would have to re-evaluate how I view things.  

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Glenn101 said:

If one focusses only on the thing that could have come from the nineteenth century, maybe. But that does not explain the other things that would hardly be found and were not found in any of the books authored in Joseph Smith's day, such as the things I pointed out.

Glenn

As I said, I am familiar with everything you're talking about and just don't find it compelling at all. But this kind of evidence works for you, and that's great.

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

As you know, I disagree, at length, and in detail, with a great many footnotes, and in my review of Taves in Interpreter not so long ago.  And having read Alexander Campbell's response the Book of Mormon from 1831, it's clear to me thatthat Joseph Smith got a great many things right that Campbell was certain were unthinkably wrong, and also Joseph got many things right that Campbell could not have even imagined, he being a second generation religious leader with far more resources for education and learning than Smith who was far busier with cutting down 5000 trees and splitting rails, and fencing property, among other things.

It's easy to explain away Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon at a high level of abstraction.  "Somehow."  The tricky bit is the details, particularly details that no one noticed for the first hundred and fifty years.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Kevin, can you expound on what you mean when you say Joseph got things right that Campbell was wrong about?  Are you talking about theological concepts that you believe Joseph has the correct theology on, and is this correctness in the sense that these were somehow in alignment with deity?  

I'm not sure what you're saying about Joseph being more busy than Campbell, "cutting down 5000 trees and splitting rails, and fencing property, among other things."  He certainly had enough time to dictate the BoM.  I don't get the impression that he was producing very much from the earning a living perspective, he was living with his in-laws part of the time, and other family members the rest of the time.  Joseph never really developed a profession/trade during his lifetime, he ended up being supported by the religious community he formed.  

I don't know about Campbell, perhaps he was also supported by his religious community as well.  But I'm not sure why this is relevant.  But I imagine Campbell was much more formally educated that Joseph.  They were both part of the restorationist movement in the 2nd great awakening.  It seems like they had quite a few theological ideas in common being part of that movement.  I haven't studied Campbell much though.  

As for details that Joseph couldn't have known about, things like chiasmus, I just haven't found any of those arguments persuasive. 

[hope_for_things]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

O.K. If it makes you happy,  think of me as the ADD bad guy.  Should make life more pleasant for you.

Don't worry, I'm enough of a schmuck to forget and keep responding to you.     I'm sure I'm impatient and flawed often enough with my comments as well, and I hope people will forgive me for those flaws.