The State of Mormon Apologetics

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I really enjoyed Hinckley's biography, and think I would have enjoyed being his friend in college. It seems like he had doubts and conflicting thoughts that lasted into his mission. But then at some point as a missionary he wondered what he was doing there and decided that he needed to either be all in or all out. His choice to go all in seemed to be more about being loyal to his heritage than about having intellectually concluded that it was really the Kingdom of God. Maybe that is the way he saw things--he saw a really complicated world, but at the end realized that key really do boil down to binary choices and binary truth claims.

I think you misread his biography. His adherence to the faith was more than just a decision to conform to his heritage. He testified countless times in his life of the divinity and truthfulness of the Mormon faith. It does him a disservice to imply that this was nothing more than an accommodation to family expectations. He is no longer alive to speak up for himself, so I will do it for him here. 

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church aalrready does this. Such persons are welcome so long as they don’t promulgate views contrary to Church teachings. 

What is tolerated seems to vary greatly depending on who you're around and the whole leadership roulette factor.  I would love to see more tolerance, not just for holding views privately, but for expressing opinions in respectful ways.  This is not just a problem in Mormonism, but seems to be a problem in our country right now with such polarization of thought.  We can do better. 

Perhaps Mormon culture could lead the way on this more tolerant approach.  How awesome would it be to have church leaders preaching tolerance for different theological ideas, including non-historical scripture and validating that these people are welcome and have important ideas to contribute in the group.   I'm talking in GC and through official channels.  Mormons could be an inspiration to the nation. 

 

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't know any believing Mormons who think it's "a work of fiction cooked up by Joseph Smith." Do you?

Van Hale may fall into that category.  See here:

Quote

Van Hale wrote: 

>The fact is that I have never considered the BM "inspired fiction." 

Perhaps not in those exact words, but you're merely arguing semantics here. From the transcripts of your radio comments, your position is that the BOM is both "divinely inspired" and not "literal history." So the term "inspired fiction" is a perfectly valid description of your own stated position. If the BOM is not literal history, then it is by default fiction. 

>I have always stated as my belief that the BM is an authentic Divinely inspired book of scripture. Further, I have always maintained that its purpose is religious and everything else is incidental. 

But, as several posters here have documented, many LDS church leaders have clearly stated that if the BOM is not literal history just as Joseph Smith claimed it was, then it should be condemned as a fraud, and Mormonism has no right to exist. (I will re-post more of my comments on this from a prior post at the bottom of this post.) 

And here (same link):

Quote

Meanwhile, on an LDS Radio show...

TBM Caller: OK. Well, as far as, as far as everything that happened in the Book of Mormon actually being a true account, like the Lamanites and Nephites and Captain Moroni and the Savior coming to the Americas, you don't exactly believe that those events took place?

Program Host Van Hale: I'm not persuaded that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient history.
...

TBM Caller: And as far as the Savior appearing to the people in America, you just don't believe that actually happened. It was just a written story I guess?

Van Hale: Well, it's... Yes. Uh, the, the situation that I see in the Book of Mormon, if you want to talk in a broad way, yes. The Book of Mormon is a history. There were ancient people, there were people living on the Americas. They came from somewhere. They had religious beliefs. They had wars. They had, they built buildings. They, some of them were quite advanced, surprisingly advanced, as we discover from some of their architecture and so forth and so in a broad sense you could say yes. The Book of Mormon is a history. But when you start talking about detail, I am not persuaded that the detail in the Book of Mormon is detail pertaining to people that anciently lived on the Americas. 
...

TBM Caller: How do you really explain the fact that Joseph Smith obtained gold plates that I guess had an ancient record on them but, I mean, was that just a record that God wrote there and then Joseph Smith just happened to go to the same hill where the angel Moroni or the prophet Moroni, who buried them there in the hill, Joseph Smith just happened to go to that same hill where these plates were found that God supposedly wrote as a story? Or could it actually just, you know, the fact remain that it was an actual true event and this stuff actually took place and, you know, so I don't know, what's your opinion on that?

Van Hale: Well, my point of view regarding the plates is that the plates did exist, that they were delivered to Joseph Smith by an angel and they were shown to witnesses of the Book of Mormon and that gave them something tangible to testify about, that they had seen the plates and handled them but I don't think that Joseph Smith was, that the Book of Mormon relates to anything that was on the plates. It was, I don't know what word to use to, without, without it sounding crude, but uh, the only word I can think of is the idea of a prop.

And here:

Quote

The point is, the church apostle is declaring the WHOLE VALIDITY OF THE CHURCH depends on the Book of Mormon being literal history, translated directly from gold plates. As he puts it, this is a "sudden death" to the church's truthfulness if the Book of Mormon isn't literal history.

The problem is that all of the evidence points to the Book of Mormon not being literal history. The case is so strong now, even ardent church supported are now admitting the Book of Mormon is "inspired fiction" and not literal history.

For example, faithful Mormon apologist and talk radio host, Van Hale and said it very clearly: http://www.i4m.com/think/van_hale.htm

I dunno.  Van Hale seem to have given quite a few people the impression that he is in the "inspired fiction" camp.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 9, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I really enjoyed Hinckley's biography, and think I would have enjoyed being his friend in college. It seems like he had doubts and conflicting thoughts that lasted into his mission. But then at some point as a missionary he wondered what he was doing there and decided that he needed to either be all in or all out. His choice to go all in seemed to be more about being loyal to his heritage than about having intellectually concluded that it was really the Kingdom of God. Maybe that is the way he saw things--he saw a really complicated world, but at the end realized that key really do boil down to binary choices and binary truth claims.

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

[Exiled]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Member are dependent, but the groups they form or join are not necessarily. FairMormon frequently publishes a disclaimer saying it is not affiliated with the Church though it is supportive of it. When I worked for the Church News and wrote about FairMormon, I was instructed by Correlation that I must include a sentence in my story making clear that FairMormon is not affiliated with the Church. The reason for this is obvious: FairMormon is free at any time to take a position that does not agree with the Church’s. 

Yes but has it ever? And who are these independent voices you speak of? Are they these groups of members that have the power to disagree but never do? If they do disagree, please give some examples.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Van Hale may fall into that category.  See here:

And here (same link):

And here:

I dunno.  Van Hale seem to have given quite a few people the impression that he is in the "inspired fiction" camp.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's a good example of what I'm talking about: "inspired fiction" is incompatible with "cooked up by Joseph Smith." I would say Van Hale is firmly in the former camp. 

Off topic: When I participated in a panel discussion about ex-Mormons at Sunstone, Van Hale asked in the Q&A why ex-Mormons are so uniformly nasty? Still makes me chuckle.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Van Hale may fall into that category.  See here:

And here (same link):

And here:

I dunno.  Van Hale seem to have given quite a few people the impression that he is in the "inspired fiction" camp.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is interesting, thanks for posting.  I couldn't access the link, but is this the same Val Hale that was the athletic director at BYU a few years back? 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What is tolerated seems to vary greatly depending on who you're around and the whole leadership roulette factor.  I would love to see more tolerance, not just for holding views privately, but for expressing opinions in respectful ways.  This is not just a problem in Mormonism, but seems to be a problem in our country right now with such polarization of thought.  We can do better. 

Perhaps Mormon culture could lead the way on this more tolerant approach.  How awesome would it be to have church leaders preaching tolerance for different theological ideas, including non-historical scripture and validating that these people are welcome and have important ideas to contribute in the group.   I'm talking in GC and through official channels.  Mormons could be an inspiration to the nation. 

 

You can quibble about “leadership roulette,” but boundaries and standards are what they are. That they might be imperfectly administered on some levels does not make them less so. 

From an institutional standpoint, the teaching of false doctrine has never been welcome in the Church of Jesus Christ, not that I’ve seen, anyway. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

It was written by Sheri Dew, and I suggest you take Analytics’s characterization of it with a grain of salt. 

Edited August 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is interesting, thanks for posting.  I couldn't access the link, but is this the same Val Hale that was the athletic director at BYU a few years back? 

Van Hale, not Val Hale. 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is interesting, thanks for posting.  I couldn't access the link, but is this the same Val Hale that was the athletic director at BYU a few years back? 

Nope, it's this Van Hale:

http://www.k-talk.com/index.php/van-hale/

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Yes but has it ever? And who are these independent voices you speak of? Are they these groups of members that have the power to disagree but never do? If they do disagree, please give some examples.

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

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

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

Edited August 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

Elder Jeffery R. Holland

Quote

To hear someone so remarkable say something so tremendously bold, so overwhelming in its implications, that everything in the Church—everything—rises or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and, by implication, the Prophet Joseph Smith’s account of how it came forth, can be a little breathtaking. It sounds like a “sudden death” proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward.

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

[clarkgoble]

52 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think it's the "cooked up" part that is not really an accurate description of how many active members believe (who now believe that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction).  I'm realizing that more are believing this way now.  I see many who still read it and gain great help and inspiration from it who believe it's fictional.

I think the "cooked up" part relates to what people mean by inspired fiction. i.e. was it authored by Joseph Smith the way say King Lear was authored by Shakespeare or was it revealed ala how most Mormons see D&C 76? That's a big divide since in one case it's God who's largely lying and in the other it's Joseph who's largely lying. I'll admit I just can't get past it being someone lying. If God just wanted to give inspiration via a Job or Jonah like story he could have told Joseph it was a story. If you rescue Joseph from being deceitful then it seems to me it has theological implications for God that are troubling.

We ridicule say Young Earth Creationists for their belief that God just made it appear like the earth is older than 7000 years with evolution and so forth. We ridicule them because they're effectively requiring God to be a liar - and a liar for no really good reasons. I think the same kind of logic is at work saying Joseph was sincere and honest about angels, the plates, Nephites and so forth. You rescue Joseph's integrity but at the cost of God's integrity.

The only other option (and this is why I think Hinkley's talk is a bit misleading) is Joseph was sincere but confused or self-deceived. Much like a Pentacostal thinks they are speaking in Adamaic but it's more a kind of psychological effect. This is Taves theory. I'm not sure it's much better for reasons I've outlined. In any case the implication in Taves undermines (IMO) any normal conception of God such that Mormons hold it. Maybe something like a more platonic conception but not the embodied divine man.

Edited August 9, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Analytics]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you misread his biography. His adherence to the faith was more than just a decision to conform to his heritage. He testified countless times in his life of the divinity and truthfulness of the Mormon faith. It does him a disservice to imply that this was nothing more than an accommodation to family expectations. He is no longer alive to speak up for himself, so I will do it for him here. 

The thing is, testifying to the alleged divinity and truthfulness of the faith is precisely what people do who see a sign that says, "What 'ere thou art, act well thy part" and then decide, "I'm a Mormon so I better start acting like it!" As Boyd K. Packer said, "A testimony is found in the bearing of it." I never said nor implied that he was making an "accommodation to family expectations." Just because he "testified countless times" doesn't mean that wasn't based on faith.

I'll dig up a copy of the biography and provide quotes if you want. I might be misremembering. But the narrative that I remember is that he was on the fence about whether being on a mission was a waste of time and money, and maybe I was reading too much between the lines, but I got the impression that he had doubts about the truthfulness about it. These doubts were resolved not because he had an intellectual epiphany that proved it was all true, and they weren't resolved because he had a revelation. They were resolved because he decided to have faith.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That's a good example of what I'm talking about: "inspired fiction" is incompatible with "cooked up by Joseph Smith." I would say Van Hale is firmly in the former camp. 

A discussion for another day, I guess. I think "cooked up by Joseph Smith" falls squarely within the parameters of the "inspired fiction" concept.  It's not the only iteration of that concept, but it's surely the prevailing one.

"Fiction" = ahistorical.  A 19th-century concoction.

"Inspired" = God worked through Joseph Smith to fabricate this this ahistorical, 19th-century concoction.

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Off topic: When I participated in a panel discussion about ex-Mormons at Sunstone, Van Hale asked in the Q&A why ex-Mormons are so uniformly nasty? Still makes me chuckle.

That's a weird question, particularly from someone whom we would expect to be more cosmopolitan about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is interesting, thanks for posting.  I couldn't access the link, but is this the same Val Hale that was the athletic director at BYU a few years back? 

Van Hale is a radio host.  You're thinking of Val Hale.

I asked the same question a while back.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the "cooked up" part relates to what people mean by inspired fiction. i.e. was it authored by Joseph Smith the way say King Lear was authored by Shakespeare or was it revealed ala how most Mormons see D&C 76. That's a big divide since in one case it's God who's largely lying and in the other it's Joseph who's largely lying.

I don't see it that way.  I believe many are inspired to write fiction (that is helpful to those who read it).  This does not mean that God lied when he inspired them to write the words.  Joseph was not lying when he taught what he believed regarding the Book of Mormon (IMO) and God was not lying when he inspired him with the words that became the stories and events in the Book of Mormon anymore than Christ was lying when he taught the parables (IMO).  A lot of truths can be taught through inspired fiction and it does not have to involve someone lying or deceiving.

Edited August 9, 2018 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A discussion for another day, I guess. I think "cooked up by Joseph Smith" falls squarely within the parameters of the "inspired fiction" concept.  It's not the only iteration of that concept, but it's surely the prevailing one.

"Fiction" = ahistorical.  A 19th-century concoction.

"Inspired" = God worked through Joseph Smith to fabricate this this ahistorical, 19th-century concoction.

It doesn't work for me, but I know quite a few believing Mormons who see it as "inspired fiction." If, as I'm constantly told here, historicity is irrelevant to the spiritual value and "truth" of the scriptures, I don't see why it wouldn't work.

Quote

That's a weird question, particularly from someone whom we would expect to be more cosmopolitan about such things.

As I said, it kind of made me laugh now, but at the time, he seemed pretty genuine and more than a little emotional about it. I'm assuming he'd had some bad experiences.

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think it's more that they disagree with him.  They believe he was expressing what he believed just as Brigham Young was doing regarding the Adam/God Doctrine, for example (who most now disagree with but don't doubt his sincerity when he taught it).  Disagreeing with someone does not mean they believe someone was purposely lying or "cooking up" something.  That's just the wrong impression to give and unfair, IMO, and implies members believe he purposely deceived or was up to no good.  

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

Edited August 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You can quibble about “leadership roulette,” but boundaries and standards are what they are. That they might be imperfectly administered on some levels does not make them less so. 

From an institutional standpoint, the teaching of false doctrine has never been welcome in the Church of Jesus Christ, not that I’ve seen, anyway. 

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

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was written by Sheri Dew, and I suggest you take Analytics’s characterization of it with a grain of salt. 

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

[stemelbow]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You can quibble about “leadership roulette,” but boundaries and standards are what they are. That they might be imperfectly administered on some levels does not make them less so. 

From an institutional standpoint, the teaching of false doctrine has never been welcome in the Church of Jesus Christ, not that I’ve seen, anyway. 

Who died on the spot then?
 

Quote

If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.

– Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, March 8, 1863.

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It doesn't work for me, but I know quite a few believing Mormons who see it as "inspired fiction." If, as I'm constantly told here, historicity is irrelevant to the spiritual value and "truth" of the scriptures, I don't see why it wouldn't work.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The thing is, testifying to the alleged divinity and truthfulness of the faith is precisely what people do who see a sign that says, "What 'ere thou art, act well thy part" and then decide, "I'm a Mormon so I better start acting like it!" As Boyd K. Packer said, "A testimony is found in the bearing of it." I never said nor implied that he was making an "accommodation to family expectations." Just because he "testified countless times" doesn't mean that wasn't based on faith.

I'll dig up a copy of the biography and provide quotes if you want. I might be misremembering. But the narrative that I remember is that he was on the fence about whether being on a mission was a waste of time and money, and maybe I was reading too much between the lines, but I got the impression that he had doubts about the truthfulness about it. These doubts were resolved not because he had an intellectual epiphany that proved it was all true, and they weren't resolved because he had a revelation. They were resolved because he decided to have faith.

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

Edited August 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd