The State of Mormon Apologetics

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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.

I suspect you didn't read all I wrote. If all we had was the text then what you describe would be true. The problem is the appearance of Moroni, the plates, the claims about the Americas etc. Those either happened or didn't. If they happened and the text is fiction then God is a liar. If they didn't happen then either Joseph is a liar or else is delusional. Taves, as I mentioned, tries to offer a third way based upon the cognitive science of unconscious writing and so forth and instantiating visions/dreams. The problem there is she really doesn't have any good evidence that Joseph thought along those lines. But if he did he's deceived.

Part of this is very much wrapped up with ones ontology of God. If God is as Mormonism says, then it's really hard (IMO) to avoid the implication that he's a liar if the Book of Mormon is fiction. If God is actually an impersonal abstract force in the universe either immanent (such as in Stoicism or Spinozism) or transcendent (such as in Platonism) then it's perhaps more understandable. But if one adopts theism and some sort of personal God, then I'm not sure how what I outline is avoidable. I'm all ears though if someone can reconcile them for me.

Edited August 9, 2018 by clarkgoble

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Let me try to explain, as it looks like you don't understand what that means either.  Speaking your truth is not a math equation. 

Correct.  Speaking a math equation is the truth, not "your" truth.

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its about sharing your story.  Its a subjective truth, a pragmatic truth, a utilitarian truth.  

Ah.  You have your own personal definition of "truth."

I don't.  I'll go with the normative definition found in the dictionary.

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You may find this article interesting about Oprah and in general how speaking your truth introduces some tensions into these discussions. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/the-power-and-perils-of-speaking-your-truth/549968/

That article makes the same point that Shapiro did (emphasis added):

Quote

But she wound up seeking justice with the help of Rosa Parks, then of the NAACP:

Quote

Recy Taylor died 10 days ago, just shy of her 98th birthday. She lived as we all have lived, too many years in a culture broken by brutally powerful men. For too long, women have not been heard or believed if they dare speak the truth to the power of those men. But their time is up. Their time is up.

And I just hope—I just hope that Recy Taylor died knowing that her truth, like the truth of so many other women who were tormented in those years, and even now tormented, goes marching on. It was somewhere in Rosa Parks’s heart almost 11 years later, when she made the decision to stay seated on that bus in Montgomery, and it's here with every woman who chooses to say, “Me too.” And every man—every man who chooses to listen.

On reflection, it seems to me that the speech’s take on “truth” would’ve been improved not by eliminating any notion of speaking “your truth,” which has its place, but by phrasing that final anecdote in a way that made one point more clear: that Recy Taylor wasn’t just speaking “her truth,” she was speaking “the truth” to power—and that her unpaid claim to justice is inseparable from that fact.

Rosa Parks didn’t take up her case to vindicate “her truth,” but on behalf of “the truth.” The Jim Crow elites who failed to prosecute her attackers may or may not have been living out “their truths,” but they were utterly at odds with “the truth.”

Even this author admits, circuitously, that "your truth" is flawed.  "Recy Taylor wasn’t just speaking 'her truth,' she was speaking 'the truth' to power."

If "my truth" coincided with "the truth," then that's just fine and dandy.  But it then becomes pointless and absurd to speak of "the truth" belonging to me.

Two plus two is not "my truth."  It's the truth.

Donald Trump being the current POTUS is not "my truth."  It's the truth.

The spherical shape of the earth is not "my truth."  It's the truth.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really. 

Oh, sure there are.  Just like with many justifications or explanations that members give that help them stay active and believing members.  Things are put on the shelf that really don't completely add up.  I see it on here from members too.  They simply shrug and say things like, "Well, we just don't know all things yet",  or "We will trust that it will all be made right and explained at a later time.",  or "We have faith that we will one day understand what really took place".  This is nothing different than that, IMO.  Many of the beliefs and teachings really kind of fall apart when analyzed or picked apart (as you're doing here), IMO.  But a lot of members don't go there or do that and simply choose to continue having faith and believing.  

I see that this is the case with members who now believe the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction.  At least that has been my experience regarding this.  But I've personally heard no one accuse Joseph of lying or "cooking" it up, who has continued believing in the church and who has remained faithful and active.  They still love the Book of Mormon and believe it contains truths that help them in their lives.

Edited August 9, 2018 by ALarson

[Peppermint Patty]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Two plus two is not "my truth."  It's the truth.

Donald Trump being the current POTUS is not "my truth."  It's the truth.

The spherical shape of the earth is not "my truth."  It's the truth.

Thanks,

-Smac

Actually “two plus two”  is not truth.  Mathematics doesn’t necessarily equal truth in nature and especially at the quantum level (which is the foundation of everything).  At the quantum level “two plus two” atoms or any particle can equal a negative billion or zero or a trillion, etc.  It all depends on the quantum state, which is largely unpredictable.

Now back to the discussion. 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I suspect you didn't read all I wrote. If all we had was the text then what you describe would be true. The problem is the appearance of Moroni, the plates, the claims about the Americas etc. Those either happened or didn't. If they happened and the text is fiction then God is a liar. If they didn't happen then either Joseph is a liar or else is delusional. Taves, as I mentioned, tries to offer a third way based upon the cognitive science of unconscious writing and so forth and instantiating visions/dreams. The problem there is she really doesn't have any good evidence that Joseph thought along those lines. But if he did he's deceived.

Part of this is very much wrapped up with ones ontology of God. If God is as Mormonism says, then it's really hard (IMO) to avoid the implication that he's a liar if the Book of Mormon is fiction. If God is actually an impersonal abstract force in the universe either immanent (such as in Stoicism or Spinozism) or transcendent (such as in Platonism) then it's perhaps more understandable. But if one adopts theism and some sort of personal God, then I'm not sure how what I outline is avoidable. I'm all ears though if someone can reconcile them for me.

I think my answer to smac that I just posted expresses what I've seen regarding all of that.  I believe members are able to make these beliefs work and still remain faithful members.  I don't think it's an "either, or" situation.  Either they believe the book of Mormon is historically factual or they believe Joseph was a lying fraud. 

(And, I always appreciate and enjoy reading your comments....thanks....I do read them all when you respond to me too  )

Edited August 9, 2018 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

I suspect you didn't read all I wrote. If all we had was the text then what you describe would be true. The problem is the appearance of Moroni, the plates, the claims about the Americas etc. Those either happened or didn't. If they happened and the text is fiction then God is a liar. If they didn't happen then either Joseph is a liar or else is delusional. Taves, as I mentioned, tries to offer a third way based upon the cognitive science of unconscious writing and so forth and instantiating visions/dreams. The problem there is she really doesn't have any good evidence that Joseph thought along those lines. But if he did he's deceived.

Part of this is very much wrapped up with ones ontology of God. If God is as Mormonism says, then it's really hard (IMO) to avoid the implication that he's a liar if the Book of Mormon is fiction. If God is actually an impersonal abstract force in the universe either immanent (such as in Stoicism or Spinozism) or transcendent (such as in Platonism) then it's perhaps more understandable. But if one adopts theism and some sort of personal God, then I'm not sure how what I outline is avoidable. I'm all ears though if someone can reconcile them for me.

As we've discussed before, the Taves approach seems to work well for me.  The plates can be the sacred object creation of Joseph's that has him materializing something that he saw in vision.  Moroni was likely a vision (he saw him in a room with multiple siblings sleeping blissfully anyway.) 

We are all subject to self deception on a number of things, as psychological studies continue to show.  Joseph wouldn't be the first person to think he saw something that didn't exist in the universe in a tangible way.  Many people claim to have seen ghosts, but yet we have no scientific evidence that they exist. 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/30/18-of-americans-say-theyve-seen-a-ghost/

I agree that this question is related to the question about the ontology of God.  The thing about God's ontology is we have just as much scientific evidence that God is a tangible being as we have that ghosts are tangible, which is nothing.  This is a question of faith, since there isn't any empirical evidence to support these positions. 

I would argue that there is still much value in metaphorical approaches to all those questions.  Although I personally haven't completely reconciled this idea about a personal God and the metaphorical approach either.  I guess my best attempt right now would be to say that the experience of God is a personal one for me, its an experience that personally makes me feel connected to the universe around me, and that feeling is a form of reality in and of itself.  Its kind of like the process of creation.  By my thinking I'm connected to the universe around me, I become more connected to what's around me through my actions.  Does that make sense? 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Quote

There are other options than just concluding he was lying or was a fraud.

Not really.

Oh, sure there are. 

No, there really aren't.

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Just like with many justifications or explanations that members give that help them stay active and believing members.  Things are put on the shelf that really don't completely add up.  I see it on here from members too.  They simply shrug and say things like, "Well, we just don't know all things yet."  "Or, we will trust that it will all be made right and explained at a later time.",  or "We have faith that we will one day understand what really took place".  This is nothing different than that, IMO. 

I invite you to articulate these "other options," then.

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Many of the beliefs and teachings really kind of fall apart when analyzed or picked apart (as you're doing here).  But a lot of members don't go there or do that and simply choose to continue having faith and believing.

I said:

Quote

In accounting for Joseph Smith's position on and explanation of the origins of the Book of Mormon, the four options seem to be:

1. Joseph was a malicious, conniving fraud;
2. Joseph was a well-intentioned fraud;
3. Joseph was a mentally infirm fraud;
4. Joseph was telling the truth.

"In accounting for..." is what I have in mind.

You may be correct that "a lot of members don't go there or do that and simply choose to continue having faith and believing."  But that means either A) they are subscription to Option 4 ("Joseph was telling the truth"), or B) they are not "accounting for Joseph Smith's position on and explanation of the origins of the Book of Mormon."

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I see that this is the case with members who now believe the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction. 

The "inspired fiction" theory is logically incoherent.  Again, 

I invite you to think on this a bit:

1. If there was no Lehi, then there were no Nephites and Lamanites. 

2. If there were no Nephites/Lamanites, there were no records and prophets keeping them. 

3. If there were no prophets, then there was no Moroni. 

4. If there was no Moroni, then Joseph Smith "was lying or was a fraud [or what mentally infirm]" when he claimed to have been visited by Moroni. 

"Inspired fiction" necessarily folds into one of the "fraud" options (Option 2, I think).

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

At least that has been my experience regarding this.  But I've personally heard no one accuse Joseph of lying who has continued believing in the church and remained faithful and active.

Same here.  That's why I have previously said this:

Quote

I think the Inspired Fiction folks have not really thought through the ramifications of their proposal.   The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship." This is why I find advocacy of this approach problematic. Such advocates are steering others up a spiritual blind alley; a path, I think, which sooner or later will culminate in a crisis of faith and/or a rejection of The Book of Mormon. After all, one who rejects its historicity has already rejected a substantive, even vital, part of the book. Rejecting the rest of it would seem to be just a matter of time.  I think an affirmative denial of the book's historicity will, sooner or later, become fatal to a testimony of the book. Ambivalence about historicity is perhaps possible, but affirmative denial is, I think, not compatible with an enduring and efficacious testimony of The Book of Mormon.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

Actually “two plus two”  is not truth.  Mathematics doesn’t necessarily equal truth in nature and especially at the quantum level (which is the foundation of everything).  

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

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

Its about sharing your story.  Its a subjective truth, a pragmatic truth, a utilitarian truth.  

Ah.  You have your own personal definition of "truth."

I don't.  I'll go with the normative definition found in the dictionary.

I just assumed with all the philosophical discussions around here on the message board that you'd be familiar with other types of truth.  These are different definitions for different discussions.  It doesn't change the math equation kind of truth you're talking about.  Are you honestly saying you don't acknowledge that any other kind of truth is useful? 

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Even this author admits, circuitously, that "your truth" is flawed.  "Recy Taylor wasn’t just speaking 'her truth,' she was speaking 'the truth' to power."

If "my truth" coincided with "the truth," then that's just fine and dandy.  But it then becomes pointless and absurd to speak of "the truth" belonging to me.

Two plus two is not "my truth."  It's the truth.

Donald Trump being the current POTUS is not "my truth."  It's the truth.

The spherical shape of the earth is not "my truth."  It's the truth.

The author makes some points about how things can get complicated when people use this phrase speaking their truth, but the author didn't just dismiss what Oprah was doing outright.  You seem to think there is a right and wrong answer to this discussion and its not that simple. 

 

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The "inspired fiction" theory is logically incoherent. 

I understand that for you and others, it is....but I'm seeing members who now believe this and who are able to remain faithful members of the church.  They've been able to put some of the things you list "on the shelf" and still believe.  They trust that things will be revealed or given later that will explain away what you express.  It might not make sense to you, but it does for them.  Do you not know (or have read about) any active members who believe the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction?

It's working for many and I am happy to see this as an option for some rather than to see them leave the church over it.  I know of many in my ward who are in this situation (and even know of leaders who now believe this).

Edited August 9, 2018 by ALarson

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

The "inspired fiction" theory is logically incoherent.  Again, 

I invite you to think on this a bit:

1. If there was no Lehi, then there were no Nephites and Lamanites. 

2. If there were no Nephites/Lamanites, there were no records and prophets keeping them. 

3. If there were no prophets, then there was no Moroni. 

4. If there was no Moroni, then Joseph Smith "was lying or was a fraud [or what mentally infirm]" when he claimed to have been visited by Moroni. 

 

I think there is another option besides "JS was lying" and it is that God lied to JS and presented all of this as true (right down to having an angel appear and pretend to be Moroni) when it actually never happened.  That way JS could have been telling the truth and the BOM can still be fictional. 

There are some significant problems with that line of reasoning of course, that I don't think most believers in the "inspired fiction" idea want to deal with, but it's a possibility none the less.

[smac97]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

I just assumed with all the philosophical discussions around here on the message board that you'd be familiar with other types of truth. 

Nah.  I'm a meat 'n potatoes kind of guy when it comes to philosophizing about "truth."

I'll just go with the dictionary.

Just now, hope_for_things said:

These are different definitions for different discussions.  It doesn't change the math equation kind of truth you're talking about.  Are you honestly saying you don't acknowledge that any other kind of truth is useful? 

The author makes some points about how things can get complicated when people use this phrase speaking their truth, but the author didn't just dismiss what Oprah was doing outright.  You seem to think there is a right and wrong answer to this discussion and its not that simple. 

The author was trying to have his/her cake and eat it too.  "How things can get complicated" is essentially a concession that phrases like "my truth" or "your truth" confuse fare more than they clarify.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I think there is another option besides "JS was lying" and it is that God lied to JS and presented all of this as true (right down to having an angel appear and pretend to be Moroni) when it actually never happened.  That way JS could have been telling the truth and the BOM can still be fictional. 

That stretches reason to the breaking point.  If we go with that option, we may as well go full bore. 

Maybe Moroni was a bug-eyed alien from Neptune that used a mind-control ray on Joseph. 

Maybe the universe is nothing but a massive computer simulation, such that nothing - including us - is real.  

Maybe time-travelers from the future went back in time and used technology to trick Joseph Smith.

And so on.  Ad infinitum.

Moreover, this is only a slight variation on a theme.  God lying to Joseph Smith would make Joseph Smith a negligent fraud.  A dupe.  A patsy.  But still a fraud.

And is anyone really going to entertain theories that the perfected, glorified, all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe . . . lied to Joseph Smith?

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

There are some significant problems with that line of reasoning of course, that I don't think most believers in the "inspired fiction" idea want to deal with, but it's a possibility none the less.

I think it folds into Option 2 ("Joseph was a well-intentioned fraud").

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nah.  I'm a meat 'n potatoes kind of guy when it comes to philosophizing about "truth."

I'll just go with the dictionary.

Good news, the pragmatic theory of truth is found in multiple dictionaries.  Here you go.

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100341775

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The author was trying to have his/her cake and eat it too.  "How things can get complicated" is essentially a concession that phrases like "my truth" or "your truth" confuse fare more than they clarify

The author is presenting different sides of an issue, rather than making it a one sided, I win and you lose proposition.  While those statements can confuse if used irresponsibly or improperly, they have value to add when used correctly.  Just like everything it can be misused, but that doesn't mean we throw it out or pretend it doesn't exist.   

[Peppermint Patty]

12 minutes 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

Some would say that Melanie Trump is the actual president 😏.

Even outside the quantum level mathematics isn’t the truth. For example what is one raindrop plus another raindrop? It’s not two raindrops, it’s one bigger raindrop. There are thousands of areas that mathematics just doesn’t cut it.  It’s the best we have, but I wouldn’t say math is truth by any stretch of the imagination.

And try telling a flat earther that the earth is spherical.  That’s not their truth.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't remember any discussion of the evils of anti-Mormons when the church released the essays.  Could you provide a reference to that, I've been following the events around the essays pretty closely. 

Also, I wouldn't characterize this at all the way you have here.  The Essays don't represent "telling the whole truth up front", that sounds like marketing hype.  The Essays and the JSP are all steps towards greater transparency, but there are many things still redacted by the church and the essays aren't even close to the whole picture on those topics.  There is a book being worked on that I've heard will be published later this year by the UoU press on the church Essays, I think it will be an interesting read and I'm looking forward to it. 

It is the unredacted JSP which tells it all, not the Essays.  You need to read more carefully.  The Essays are interpretive, by scholars, with a focus on particular issues.  You need to separate disparate apologetic enterprises.  As for the atmosphere which accompanied the appearance of the Essays, you have only to read the constant condemnations of the Church here on this board in  the past to realize that this was a major issue -- which the Essays were written to discuss more openly.  This apologetic effort also included books and articles by historians from the LDS Church Historical Dept on sensitive issues, such as the MMM.  Moreover, every anti-Mormon in SLC now knows that the Archives are fully open to him.  This is a big change from the past, in which scapegoating and refusal of access was common.  I have anti-Mormon friends who have commented on that fact enthusiastically.  Perhaps you are too young to realize the actual change over time.

Professionalism is a big part of all that, beginning with Leonard Arrington and his crew back in the 1970s.  One of those PhDs, currently employed by the Church Historical Dept (Steven Harper) stated quite frankly just last week (Aug 3, 2018), during his presentation at the FairMormon Conference in Provo, that a whole set of volumes on Church history is now coming out from the Historical Dept designed to "immunize the rising generation" of millennials against the misinformation commonly put out by anti-Mormons.  The project will be finished in 2019, but much of it is already available online under the rubric "Saints: The Story of the Church in the Latter Days," on lds.org.  Harper pointed out that the series is designed to deal with everything, including the "hard" parts of LDS history, with footnotes, and accessible prose.  They will be published finally in a 4-volume set.

[Scott Lloyd]

For those hung up on Oprah’s “my truth” “your truth” meme, I have a viable option: Simply recast “my truth” as “my opinion” and “your truth” as “your opinion.” Then, it suddenly makes sense. Your opinion may be very well founded, and ideally it may approach or coincide with THE truth. But if it parts therefrom, THE truth remains  unchanged. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I understand that for you and others, it is....

I don't think it's merely subjectively incoherent.  I think it is necessarily and logically incoherent.  

Again, I invite you to think on this a bit:

1. If there was no Lehi, then there were no Nephites and Lamanites. 

2. If there were no Nephites/Lamanites, there were no records and prophets keeping them. 

3. If there were no such prophets, then there was no Moroni. 

4. If there was no Moroni, then Joseph Smith "was lying or was a fraud [or was mentally infirm]" when he claimed to have been visited by Moroni in JS-H.

That's my reasoning.  I invite you to critique and falsify it.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

but I'm seeing members who now believe this and who are able to remain faithful members of the church. 

So do I.  But they are doing it by subscribing to one of the following four options for accounting for Joseph Smith's representations about the origins of the Book of Mormon:

1. Joseph was a malicious, conniving fraud;
2. Joseph was a well-intentioned fraud;
3. Joseph was a mentally infirm fraud; or
4. Joseph was telling the truth.

You may be correct that "a lot of members don't go there or do that and simply choose to continue having faith and believing."  But that means either A) they are subscription to Option 4 ("Joseph was telling the truth"), or B) they are not "accounting for Joseph Smith's position on and explanation of the origins of the Book of Mormon" (in other words, they aren't "accounting for Joseph Smith's representations" at all).

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

They've been able to put some of the things you list "on the shelf" and still believe.

I agree.  I have some "on the shelf" items myself.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It's working for many and I am happy to see this as an option for some rather than to see them leave the church over it.

Same here.  I wrote an extensive entry on this topic back in 2016.  See here.  It's long, so I'll just excerpt it:

Quote

1. Faith in Christ is Required for Salvation

I think faith in Christ is required for salvation.  I also think "faith" requires action.  "[F]aith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone" (James 2:17).  Hence we are obligated to obey God's commandments.  Serve our fellow man.  Develop Christlike attributes.  Participate in saving ordinances.  And so on.  Further, D&C 112:20 states:

Quote

Whosoever receiveth my word receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent, whom I have made counselors for my name’s sake unto you.

2. "Inspired Fiction" = "Rejection of The Book of Mormon as Scripture and Joseph Smith as a Prophet" 

In my view, rejecting the BoM's historicity necessarily requires rejecting the BoM's status as scripture. I don't think that a coherent good faith argument can be made otherwise. In fact, I think the "Inspired Fiction" concept sets a faith-imperiling precedent.  If we reject The Book of Mormon as not having historicity, we reject it as scripture, because The Book of Mormon presents itself as historical, not as a fable.  If we reject The Book of Mormon for what it claims for itself, then we must also reject Joseph Smith, who likewise declared it to be an actual historical document recounting the lives of actual historical people.  

3. Rejection of BOM as Scripture = Rejection of Christ

If we reject The Book of Mormon as scripture, we must also reject Joseph Smith as a liar and deceiver of the first order.  And if we do that, then rejection of the remainder of the Restored Gospel will, I think, necessarily follow, culminating in a rejection of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

...

The "Inspired Fiction" folks are rejecting the words of God and the messengers of God, and they are encouraging others to do likewise.  Consider the following remarks by Elder Oaks (emphasis added):

Quote

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

I have yet to see the Inspired Fiction folks address this issue, which I believe is fatal to their proposal.  If The Book of Mormon can be rejected for what it claims to be, and instead construed as fiction, then so can Jesus Christ.

4. The Value of The Book of Mormon is Inextricably Linked to its Historicity

...

5. I Welcome the "Inspired Fiction" Folks in the Church

I think those who seek salvation, but who reject the messengers who bring it, are in serious error.  Nevertheless, as deeply flawed as their position is, I welcome such persons who buy into the "inspired fiction" meme in fellowship in the Church.  We are all of us working to improve our understanding of God and His plans for us.  It is not for me to withdraw or withhold fellowship from those who differ from me on this issue.  I also won't speculate as to their standing in the Church generally, and will instead leave such things to those who are in authority and have proper stewardship.

That last point is important to me.  I really mean it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

Some would say that Melanie Trump is the actual president 😏.

But that would not be "the truth."

17 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

Even outside the quantum level mathematics isn’t the truth. For example what is one raindrop plus another raindrop? It’s not two raindrops, it’s one bigger raindrop.

No, there are two raindrops.  If they merge together, then they become "one bigger raindrop."

17 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

There are thousands of areas that mathematics just doesn’t cut it.  It’s the best we have, but I wouldn’t say math is truth by any stretch of the imagination.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

17 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

And try telling a flat earther that the earth is spherical.  That’s not their truth.

You prove my point here.  "Their truth" is not the truth.  So adding a possessive pronoun to "truth" is inappropriate.

-Smac

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So do I.  But they are doing it by subscribing to one of the following four options for accounting for Joseph Smith's representations about the origins of the Book of Mormon:

1. Joseph was a malicious, conniving fraud;
2. Joseph was a well-intentioned fraud;
3. Joseph was a mentally infirm fraud; or
4. Joseph was telling the truth.

I've only known of members believing the last option you list (#4) who have been able to remain faithful, believing members.  But maybe your experience has been different from mine.  If someone believes one of the first three, I'd imagine it would be difficult to remain active (or at least active and a faithful believer in the truthfulness of the church).

I have heard that some believe Joseph saw Moroni in a dream state (inspired by God) that led him to find the plates which inspired him to write the fictional accounts and stories.  Some have also expressed how stories don't have to be factual or historical to teach great life lessons (such as the parables, for example) and are inspired stories from God..  

Edited August 9, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've only known of members believing the last option you list (#4) who have been able to remain faithful, believing members. 

The "inspired fiction" theories necessarily requires acceptance of Option 2.

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But maybe your experience has been different from mine.  If someone believes one of the first three, I'd imagine it would be difficult to remain active (or at least active and a faithful believer in the truthfulness of the church).

I agree.  This is why I find advocacy of the "inspired fiction" theory to be problematic.  This theory necessarily entails Option 2, which in turn entails fraud. 

Such advocates are steering others up a spiritual blind alley; a path, I think, which sooner or later will culminate in a crisis of faith and/or a rejection of The Book of Mormon. After all, one who rejects its historicity has already rejected a substantive, even vital, part of the book. Rejecting the rest of it would seem to be just a matter of time.

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I have heard that some believe Joseph saw Moroni in a dream state (inspired by God) that led him to find the plates which inspired him to write the fictional accounts and stories. 

"Find the plates?"  What plates?  If there was no Moroni and no ancestors of Moroni, then there were no plates (since Moroni and his ancestors purportedly kept and wrote on the plates).

If Joseph actually had physical plates, they could not - under the "inspired fiction" theory - be authentically ancient.  That means that Joseph either fabricated them or else colluded with someone else who did.  He then represented to others that these plates were authentically ancient, when in fact they weren't.  That's . . . fraud.

And if Joseph did not have physical plates, then that's fraud, too.  He claimed to have them.  He claimed to have shown them to others.

So we keep ending up with the four options I listed previously:

1. Joseph was a malicious, conniving fraud;
2. Joseph was a well-intentioned fraud;
3. Joseph was a mentally infirm fraud;
4. Joseph was telling the truth.

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Some have also expressed how stories don't have to be factual to teach great life lessons (such as the parables, for example).  

"Great life lessons" are a separate question from accounting for Joseph Smith's position on and explanation of the origins of the Book of Mormon.  As to that issue, we really only have the above four options.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I suspect you didn't read all I wrote. If all we had was the text then what you describe would be true. The problem is the appearance of Moroni, the plates, the claims about the Americas etc. Those either happened or didn't. If they happened and the text is fiction then God is a liar. If they didn't happen then either Joseph is a liar or else is delusional. Taves, as I mentioned, tries to offer a third way based upon the cognitive science of unconscious writing and so forth and instantiating visions/dreams. The problem there is she really doesn't have any good evidence that Joseph thought along those lines. But if he did he's deceived.

Part of this is very much wrapped up with ones ontology of God. If God is as Mormonism says, then it's really hard (IMO) to avoid the implication that he's a liar if the Book of Mormon is fiction. If God is actually an impersonal abstract force in the universe either immanent (such as in Stoicism or Spinozism) or transcendent (such as in Platonism) then it's perhaps more understandable. But if one adopts theism and some sort of personal God, then I'm not sure how what I outline is avoidable. I'm all ears though if someone can reconcile them for me.

My suspicion is that the "inspired fiction" people are those who have given up defending the historicity of the Book of Mormon but do not want to give up believing its divine origins. It's a tough position to be in, but I respect those who manage to make it work.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Aaurhenticity means that what the book of scripture purports is true. If it’s a work of fiction purporting to be an actual ancient record, it is not authentic. 

A work of Scripture can contain fictional stories as object lessons.  The parables of Jesus are a good example, but there are other portions of Scripture which some scholars believe were composed in the same manner as parables.  The deeply symbolic and poetic sections are even more problematic.  We also have frankly personal opinion expressed within Scripture (Paul openly states that).  Finally, we have plainly false statements made by bad people and Satan in Scripture.  We must read with caution and awareness.  Brother Brigham states these facts in his own inimitable manner:

Quote

I have heard some make the broad assertion that every word within the lids of the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them, "You have never read the Bible, have you?" "O, yes, and I believe every word in it is the word of God." Well, I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the *** when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are; but aside from that I believe the doctrines concerning salvation contained in that book are true, and that their observance will elevate any people, nation or family that dwells on the face of the earth. The doctrines contained in the Bible will lift to a superior condition all who observe them; they will impart to them knowledge, wisdom, charity, fill them with compassion and cause them to feel after the wants of those who are in distress, or in painful or degraded circumstances.
Journal of Discourses 13:175 (May 29, 1870)

 

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you deny what the Church teaches, you are, by definition, not faithful to it. 

I would modify that to read: "If you deny the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you are not faithful to Him."  The Church as the Kingdom of God on Earth is an organization of faithful members and priesthood designed (1) to aid in teaching the Gospel and (2) in performing essential ordinances.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The "inspired fiction" theories necessarily requires acceptance of Option 2.

 

Not from my experience with being involved in discussions regarding this issue with members and leaders.  That's not been the case at all.  Your experience may be different and I get that.  .

I've already expressed the beliefs and opinions that I've seen from the members who I've personally been acquainted with and those are not your #2.  They still believe that Joseph was a Prophet (not a fraud....well-intentioned or not.)

Edited August 9, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My suspicion is that the "inspired fiction" people are those who have given up defending the historicity of the Book of Mormon but do not want to give up believing its divine origins.

That is my assessment as well.

It's strange that they have "given up," IMO.  The historicity of the Book of Mormon is as tenable as any other faith-based claim.  If a person can subscribe to a belief system that calls for belief that Jesus Christ turned water to wine, walked on water, healed the sick, restored the dead to life, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, then believing the BOM narrative about Lehi leaving Jerusalem is, comparatively speaking, pretty easy.

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's a tough position to be in, but I respect those who manage to make it work.

So do I.

I have less respect for their evangalization of it, though.

Thanks,

-Smac