The State of Mormon Apologetics

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"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).

The plates didn't have to contain the histories.  They could have been a catalyst for the inspiration Joseph received.  Just as some now believe regarding the Book of Abraham (where they believe the scrolls were not actually written by the hand of Abraham or contain what is now the Book of Abraham).

At least that is what I've seen a few members believe now.

Hey, if it works to help them explain the issues away that they learn regarding the Book of Abraham translation, why would it surprise you that some do the same with the Book of Mormon issues they learn?

Edited August 9, 2018 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The plates didn't have to contain the histories.  They could have been a catalyst for the inspiration Joseph received.  Just as some now believe regarding the Book of Abraham (where they believe the scrolls were not actually written by the hand of Abraham or contain what is now the Book of Abraham).

At least that is what I've seen a few members believe now.

Hey, if it works to help them explain the issues away that they learn regarding the Book of Abraham translation, why would it surprise you that some do the same with the Book of Mormon issues they learn?

I don't have a problem with people saying "this doesn't make sense to me," but it's another thing to tell those who believe this that they are wrong and/or apostate. I would think that belief in God, the restoration, and their covenants should be enough. Who cares if they think the Book of Mormon isn't defensible as ancient history?

[clarkgoble]

59 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

Since this is a point Mark and I differ on, despite coming from fairly closely related philosophical traditions, I thought I'd link to this:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40320500?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

The opening paragraph sums things up rather well.

• Habermas takes his place in the pragmatist tradition by holding that the notions of truth and objectivity are linked to the human practice of inquiry. Very different conclusions have been drawn from this thought. Peirce himself argued that our judgements can aspire to truth - a judgement would be true if it would be agreed upon at the end of a sufficiently pursued inquiry. Richard Rorty's brand of pragmatism, on the other hand, concludes that we ought to abandon the notions of truth and objectivity and replace them with a notion of justification relative to one group of inquirers or an other. Habermas sides with Peirce in this debate. We can help ourselves to a concept of truth - it is what could be agreeable to all in an unconstrained discussion or inquiry.

 

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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. 

But of course this position has serious religious implications. As you say, Joseph in this scenario is self-deceived. In which case the religious value of the text becomes seriously constrained. There are rather strong implications for the nature of God, the nature of prayer, and even questions about whether there is an afterlife. Most of the basic tenets of Mormonism come under severe and perhaps unrecoverable strain. Perhaps the text is religious, but it's a religious disconnected from what Mormons typically think of religion. Further the epistemological question of how we draw truth from the text becomes highly problematicized. At best one ends up with religion more as say Fowler's stages of faith has it - a religion without content except towards vague ethical motivations.

Which is fine for some people of course. But I do think for many and perhaps most people that's not really religion anymore.

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

I don't think it's hard to say it's divine for such people. What I think needs to be pointed out is what "divine" means is quite different. People are using the same terminology but are meaning something radically different by it. However I also think that a lot of people aren't willing to confront this. (Lots of Nietzsche quotes come to mind since this was a central topic for him)

Edited August 9, 2018 by clarkgoble

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

So do I.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you're conflating the miraculous with the historical. I don't think anyone is claiming that the existence of Jaredite and Nephite civilizations over millennia is miraculous like healing the sick. 

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

The "inspired fiction" theories necessarily requires acceptance of Option 2 ["Joseph was a well-intentioned fraud"].

Not from my experience with being involved in discussions regarding this issue with members and leaders. 

They may not acknowledge it, but fraud is a necessary underpinning of the "inspired fiction" theory.

Quote

That's not been the case at all.  Your experience may be different and I get that.  .

It's not a matter of experience.  It's a matter of logic.  Joseph said he was visited by a resurrected Nephite, who told him where to get an ancient artifact (the plates), which Joseph then showed to others and represented to be ancient.  The "inspired fiction" theory necessarily posits that there were no Nephites.  Ergo no Moroni.  Ergo Joseph lied or was deluded about about the visitation from Moroni.  Ergo Joseph lied or was deluded about the plates.

Fraud is shot through the "inspired fiction" theory.  If this theory were a recipe for making a cake, fraud would be the flour.  It's the core component, binding all of the others together.

Quote

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. 

I get that.  That's why I have said:

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. 

Sooner or later.

Quote

They still believe that Joseph was a Prophet (not a fraud....well-intentioned or not.)

And yet they subscribe to a theory that necessarily requires Joseph to be a fraud.

I think the advocates and adherents of the "inspired fiction" theory are in serious error.  Nevertheless, as deeply flawed as their position is, I welcome such persons 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.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 9, 2018 by smac97

[ALarson]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I don't have a problem with people saying "this doesn't make sense to me," but it's another thing to tell those who believe this that they are wrong and/or apostate. I would think that belief in God, the restoration, and their covenants should be enough. Who cares if they think the Book of Mormon isn't defensible as ancient history?

Yup.  Exactly!  If members are able to remain faithful and active, but believe the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction....that's ok with me.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

They may not acknowledge it, but fraud is a necessary underpinning of the "inspired fiction" theory.

Not true.  I'm not sure why you continue to claim this as fact.

I've given you many examples of what I've heard expressed by member and leaders regarding this issue.  None of them have called Joseph Smith a fraud (intentional or unintentional).  The Book of Mormon could very definitely actually be inspired fiction along with Joseph being inspired and truthful.  How does them believing Joseph saw Moroni in a dream lead to them believing he was a fraud?  How does the belief that the plates were simply a catalyst for Joseph writing the inspired stories lead to them believing Joseph was a fraud? 

Do you believe that is what members are stating who believe this regarding the scrolls and the Book of Abraham?

It may not make sense to you and I understand that (and respect your right to your opinion).  But what you keep expressing does not represent my experience regarding those who are active members and who believe the Book of Mormon is not historically factual.

Edited August 9, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

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.

So do I.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you're conflating the miraculous with the historical.

Nope.  I'm conflating the miraculous with historicity.  

Jesus Christ only has value to me if he was real.  If he actually existed.  Rejecting the historicity of Christ renders Christ a fictional role model, like Atticus Finch or Gandalf. A fictional Christ has no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save.

Can a person have faith in The Book of Mormon while simultaneously rejecting The Book of Mormon as to its historicity? I don't think so. Such a concept renders Joseph Smith a fraud and a liar, and the book itself a fraud and a lie. A fictional Book of Mormon has no real power, and renders it as nothing more than a quirky self-help book. It becomes no more relevant to the salvation of men than Awaken the Giant Within by Anthony Robbins or How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. These are useful books, to be sure. For some, they are even life changing.  But they are still optional in a salvific sense.

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think anyone is claiming that the existence of Jaredite and Nephite civilizations over millennia is miraculous like healing the sick. 

No, but the preservation and translation of an ancient record about the Jaredite and Nephite civilizations is very much "like healing the sick."

The First Vision.  Angelic visitations.  Guidance to an ancient record.  The translation of that record "by the gift and power of God."  Three witnesses testifying that an angel descended from heaven and showed them this record, and the voice of God told them it was true.

The coming forth of the Book of Mormon as described by Joseph Smith is as miracuous as Christ healing the sick.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  I'm conflating the miraculous with historicity.  

Jesus Christ only has value to me if he was real.  If he actually existed. 

I think this is the heart of the matter. Members who don't necessarily believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon say it still has value to them. It goes without saying that a non-historical Book of Mormon would have no value to you. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

They may not acknowledge it, but fraud is a necessary underpinning of the "inspired fiction" theory.

Not true. 

Quite true.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure why you continue to claim this as fact.

Well, I've explained myself at some length in this thread.  

Once again: 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.

I have repeatedly asked that you present "other options" than these.  You have yet to do so.

As for the "inspired fiction" theory in particular, I once again invite you to think on this a bit:

1. If, as the "inspired fiction" theory necessarily requires, 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 again invite you to critique and falsify it.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've given you many examples of what I've heard expressed by member and leaders regarding this issue. 

Right.  But I think they are ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that the "inspired fiction" theory necessarily entails some species of fraud by Joseph Smith.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

None of them have called Joseph Smith a fraud (intentional or unintentional). 

But they subscribe to a theory that necessarily calls for Joseph Smith to be a fraud.  

I get that these folks are either ignoring this, or else they just haven't thought it through.  But the fraud is still there.  It's baked into the theory.  It is the sine qua non of the theory.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The Book of Mormon could very definitely actually be inspired fiction along with Joseph being inspired and truthful.

I invite you, again, to address the points above.  Here they are again:

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.

What other options do you think exist?

As for the "inspired fiction" theory in particular, I invite you to think on this a bit:

1. If, as the "inspired fiction" theory necessarily requires, 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 again invite you to critique and falsify it.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It may not make sense to you and I understand that (and respect your right to your opinion). 

It's not that I don't understand the "inspired fiction" theory.  It's that I disagree with it.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But what you keep expressing does not represent my experience regarding those who are active members and who believe the Book of Mormon is not historically factual.

I'd like to get past your experience and deal with the logical underpinnings of the theory.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

They may not acknowledge it, but fraud is a necessary underpinning of the "inspired fiction" theory.

It's not a matter of experience.  It's a matter of logic.  Joseph said he was visited by a resurrected Nephite, who told him where to get an ancient artifact (the plates), which Joseph then showed to others and represented to be ancient.  The "inspired fiction" theory necessarily posits that there were no Nephites.  Ergo no Moroni.  Ergo Joseph lied or was deluded about about the visitation from Moroni.  Ergo Joseph lied or was deluded about the plates.

Fraud is shot through the "inspired fiction" theory.  If this theory were a recipe for making a cake, fraud would be the flour.  It's the core component, binding all of the others together.

I get that.  That's why I have said:

Sooner or later.

And yet they subscribe to a theory that necessarily requires Joseph to be a fraud.

I think the advocates and adherents of the "inspired fiction" theory are in serious error.  Nevertheless, as deeply flawed as their position is, I welcome such persons 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.

Thanks,

-Smac

I welcome them in fellowship as well, but I don't want them promulgating their incorrect views, logically and doctrinally incoherent as they are, to others, lest they do what you have characterized as steering others up a blind alley. I don't want them occupying precious time in Church classes and meetings arguing for these views or insisting they be placed on an equal footing with true doctrine. I don't want them teaching these views to members of my family, especially those who are of an impressionable age.

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The plates didn't have to contain the histories. 

According to Joseph Smith, they did.  From JS-H (emphases added):

Quote

30 While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor.

31 He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.

32 Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightning. The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him, I was afraid; but the fear soon left me.

33 He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.

34 He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants.

So if you are right about the plates, then Joseph Smith lied or was deluded when he wrote verse 34.

Whose version of things should I believe, yours or Joseph Smith's?  If I believe you, Joseph Smith was lying or deluded.  If I believe Joseph Smith, then you are wrong in stating that "[t]he plates didn't have to contain the histories."

So which is it?

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

They could have been a catalyst for the inspiration Joseph received. 

I've explained this several times now, and you have refused to address it several times now.

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 which is it?  Did Joseph have physical plates or not?  It doesn't really matter for the "inspired fiction" theory, though, since Joseph ends up a fraud whether he fabricated plates and passed them off as ancient, or else never had any plates at all and lied to people when he claimed that he did have such plates.

Again, I invite you to consider the logical ramifications of the "inspired fiction" theory.  I'm really not intending to be rude or unkind.  Quite the contrary.  I am hoping that you will understand my reasoning against this theory, and perhaps even be persuaded by it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I welcome them in fellowship as well, but I don't want them promulgating their incorrect views, logically and doctrinally incoherent as they are, to others, lest they do what you have characterized as steering others up a blind alley. I don't want them occupying precious time Church classes and meetings arguing for these views or insisting they be place on an equal footing with true doctrine. I don't want them teaching these views to members of my family, especially those who are of an impressionable age.

Yep.  I'm fine with there being divergent viewpoints on a great many topics in the Church.  But the "inspired fiction" theory is fundamentally and profoundly flawed.  It is diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'd like to get past your experience and deal with the logical underpinnings of the theory.  

Why? If logically one cannot accept the Book of Mormon as scripture unless they accept it as historical, the only logical choice would seem to be to leave the church. Again, what does it matter if someone else believes differently than you do? 

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I welcome them in fellowship as well, but I don't want them promulgating their incorrect views, logically and doctrinally incoherent as they are, to others, lest they do what you have characterized as steering others up a blind alley. I don't want them occupying precious time Church classes and meetings arguing for these views or insisting they be place on an equal footing with true doctrine. I don't want them teaching these views to members of my family, especially those who are of an impressionable age.

I haven't spent a lot of time in church meetings in the last few years, but is this kind of promulgation common? I've never heard of anyone evangelizing these views in church meetings and lessons. 

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have repeatedly asked that you present "other options" than these.  You have yet to do so.

I've told you all that I've heard from members regarding this (who have remained active) was your option #4.  That means there doesn't need to be others given (when I've seen none).  I've not claimed there were "other options", have I? 

And, you've ignored the questions I asked and have also continued to ignore the beliefs I've listed that I've personally heard from members and leaders (such as the plates possibly being a catalyst just as some believe the scrolls were for Joseph to translate or write the Book of Abraham).  There are definitely explanations and beliefs that do not include believing Joseph was a liar or a fraud.  That he may have been mistaken or could have gotten some details wrong, does not make him dishonest or a fraud anymore than Brigham Young and others getting things wrong and teaching things such as the Adam/God Doctrine (does that make him a "fraud"?).  Or do you believe that Joseph made no mistakes?

I'm not going to keep listing those for you when you just continue to ignore them.

I'm moving on here....

Edited August 9, 2018 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've told you all that I've heard from members regarding this (who have remained active) was your option #4.  That means there doesn't need to be others given (when I've seen none).  I've not claimed there were "other options", have I? 

And, you've ignored the questions I asked and have also continued to ignore the beliefs I've listed that I've personally heard from members and leaders.  There are definitely explanations and beliefs that do not include believing Joseph was a liar or a fraud.  

I'm not going to keep listing those for you when you just continue to ignore them.

I'm moving on here....

It seems odd that you are being asked to defend the logic of a position that you apparently don't hold. 

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

Nope.  I'm conflating the miraculous with historicity.  

Jesus Christ only has value to me if he was real.  If he actually existed. 

I think this is the heart of the matter. Members who don't necessarily believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon say it still has value to them.

I'm speaking of salvific value.  Eschatalogical value.  

Atticus Finch and Gandalf and Captain America all have "value" to me, but that value is qualitatively different from the "value" I find in Jesus Christ.  I can take or leave Atticus and Gandalf.  I don't need them.  

But I do need Jesus Christ.  Not just as a speaker of nice words and aphorisms about being kind to one's neighbor (though that's surely a part of it).  Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  The Savior of the world.  He atoned for my sins.  Atticus and Gandalf did none of these things.

Parables have value irrespective of their historicity, I agree with that. However, Jesus Christ being the Son of God and Savior of the world only has value because of the historicity tied up with that declaration. Historicity matters when we consider various scriptural passages, such as this one: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Absent historicity, this passage has no salvific meaning or value. Without historicity, Jesus would be just another admirable fictional character, like Atticus Finch, or Samwise Gamgee, or Captain America. Jesus would be about as valuable to me as an imaginary life preserver would be to a drowning man.

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It goes without saying that a non-historical Book of Mormon would have no value to you. 

Not quite.  As I've said previously:

Quote

Can a person have faith in The Book of Mormon while simultaneously rejecting The Book of Mormon as to its historicity? I don't think so. Such a concept renders Joseph Smith a fraud and a liar, and the book itself a fraud and a lie. A fictional Book of Mormon has no real power, and renders it as nothing more than a quirky self-help book. It becomes no more relevant to the salvation of men than Awaken the Giant Within by Anthony Robbins or How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. These are useful books, to be sure. For some, they are even life changing. But The Book of Mormon declares itself to be the word of God through inspired prophets.

So a non-historical BOM would have some value (like Awaken the Giant Within or How to Win Friends and Influence People).

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I'm speaking of salvific value.  Eschatalogical value.  

Atticus Finch and Gandalf and Captain America all have "value" to me, but that value is qualitatively different from the "value" I find in Jesus Christ.  I can take or leave Atticus and Gandalf.  I don't need them.  

But I do need Jesus Christ.  Not just as a speaker of nice words and aphorisms about being kind to one's neighbor (though that's surely a part of it).  Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  The Savior of the world.  He atoned for my sins.  Atticus and Gandalf did none of these things.

Parables have value irrespective of their historicity, I agree with that. However, Jesus Christ being the Son of God and Savior of the world only has value because of the historicity tied up with that declaration. Historicity matters when we consider various scriptural passages, such as this one: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Absent historicity, this passage has no salvific meaning or value. Without historicity, Jesus would be just another admirable fictional character, like Atticus Finch, or Samwise Gamgee, or Captain America. Jesus would be about as valuable to me as an imaginary life preserver would be to a drowning man.

Not quite.  As I've said previously:

So a non-historical BOM would have some value (like Awaken the Giant Within or How to Win Friends and Influence People).

Thanks,

-Smac

I didn't think you believed Awaken the Giant Within and How to Friends and Influence People were revealed scripture. 

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Why? If logically one cannot accept the Book of Mormon as scripture unless they accept it as historical, the only logical choice would seem to be to leave the church. Again, what does it matter if someone else believes differently than you do? 

It does seem to be a huge trigger point for him.  I would think that most here would be very happy to learn that some can remain active and believing yet also believe the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction (and still find much value in reading it).

I'm truly moving on here though....

Edited August 9, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

I'd like to get past your experience and deal with the logical underpinnings of the theory.  

Why?

Because an individual's subjective "experience" can only get us so far.  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.

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).

We can talk about feelings and experiences all the day long, but that doesn't advance the discussion scrutinizing the logical underpinnings of the "inspired fiction" theory.

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If logically one cannot accept the Book of Mormon as scripture unless they accept it as historical, the only logical choice would seem to be to leave the church.

I couldn't agree more.  That is one of the primary points I have been making.  For years now.

As I have said previously:

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.

Sooner or later.

I would hope, then, to dissuade members of the Church before they are steered up this "blind alley."

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, what does it matter if someone else believes differently than you do? 

See above.

There are advocates of the "inspired fiction" theory, yes?

These people are free to express their viewpoint, yes?

So there really shouldn't be a problem with me advocating my viewpoint on this issue, yes?

I'm not coercing anyone.  I'm not insulting anyone.  I'm not demanding that anyone capitulate to my point of view.  I have, instead, disagreed with this theory, while repeatedly emphasizing the following:

Quote

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.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I didn't think you believed Awaken the Giant Within and How to Friends and Influence People were revealed scripture. 

I don't.

And if Jesus Christ is a fictional character, I wouldn't believe that He is the Son of God.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I welcome them in fellowship as well, but I don't want them promulgating their incorrect views, logically and doctrinally incoherent as they are, to others, lest they do what you have characterized as steering others up a blind alley. I don't want them occupying precious time Church classes and meetings arguing for these views or insisting they be place on an equal footing with true doctrine. I don't want them teaching these views to members of my family, especially those who are of an impressionable age.

 

Welcome ...welcome..now shut up.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  I'm fine with there being divergent viewpoints on a great many topics in the Church.  But the "inspired fiction" theory is fundamentally and profoundly flawed.  It is diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

In a sense it is like the heartland theory of Book of Mormon geography. It might answer some questions that some have, but at the end of the day it is untenable and might leave a questioner worse off than before in dealing with criticisms of Church doctrine.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

I have repeatedly asked that you present "other options" than these.  You have yet to do so.

I've told you all that I've heard from members regarding this (who have remained active) was your option #4.  That means there doesn't need to be others given (when I've seen none).  I've not claimed there were "other options", have I? 

Well yes, you have.  See here:

Quote

Quote

Daniel Peterson created an outline of the "alternative" explanations for the Book of Mormon.  See here:

 

Here's my take (same link):

So Joseph Smith "lying or intentionally deceiving" is not all.  Another option is that he was "unintentionally deceiving."  This is often called the "pious fraud" theory.

Thanks,

-Smac

Or, he had the plates and they inspired him to write down the stories....just as some now believe took place regarding the Book of Abraham.

I know of members who believe Joseph Smith was being truthful, but that the inspired writings are fictional and never really took place.

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

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

What did you mean when you wrote that?  Have I misunderstood you?

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And, you've ignored the questions I asked and have also continued to ignore the beliefs I've listed that I've personally heard from members and leaders (such as the plates possibly being a catalyst just as some belief the scrolls were for Joseph to translate or write the Book of Abraham).  There are definitely explanations and beliefs that do not include believing Joseph was a liar or a fraud.  

What are they?

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not going to keep listing those for you when you just continue to ignore them.

I'm moving on here....

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac