The State of Mormon Apologetics

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I don't.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

You have reminded me of two people I've known all my life. One is very much a literalist who says, "I wonder which tribe or group was really the Nephites and Lamanites?" and gets excited over archaeology and such. The other has said to me multiple times, "The scriptures are stories that explain my relationship to God to me." When I ask if he thinks it's a literal story, he shrugs and says it doesn't really matter. It's scripture, and it tells him what God wants him to know about the world and his place in it. 

For the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone would think either approach is correct and the other wrong. 

[smac97]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Quote

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.

Well, sorta.  The heartland theory pertains to an open question (the geography of the Book of Mormon).  The Church has not taken a position on this issue.

In contrast, the "inspired fiction" theory contravenes the Church's teachings about the Book of Mormon.  I'm not quite ready to characterize it as "false doctrine," but it seems awfully close to it.

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

You have reminded me of two people I've known all my life. One is very much a literalist who says, "I wonder which tribe or group was really the Nephites and Lamanites?" and gets excited over archaeology and such. The other has said to me multiple times, "The scriptures are stories that explain my relationship to God to me." When I ask if he thinks it's a literal story, he shrugs and says it doesn't really matter. It's scripture, and it tells him what God wants him to know about the world and his place in it. 

For the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone would think either approach is correct and the other wrong. 

Neither of these approaches requires us to reject Joseph Smith's various representations about the Book of Mormon.  Neither requires Joseph to be a fraud or mentally deranged.

The "inspired fiction" theory, on the other than . . . 

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

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

As I have said previously:

Sooner or later.

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

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:

Thanks,

-Smac

I guess I just can't see going to the judgment and having Jesus say, "Well, you kept your covenants, magnified your callings, followed the spirit, and lived an exemplary life of service to God and your neighbor, but sorry, you didn't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon." 

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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. 

I haven't either -- yet. But I think we might be headed that way.

Within the last few days on this thread, I have seen the suggestion that FairMormon remake itself to allow for "apologetics" pertaining to the inspired-fiction theory.

And I have a vague memory of a couple of years ago, after Grant Hardy spoke at the FairMormon Conference, that someone here on the board suggested that there be allowance in Sunday School classes for discussion of it.

I guess I'm trying to head it off at the pass.

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Neither of these approaches requires us to reject Joseph Smith's various representations about the Book of Mormon.  Neither requires Joseph to be a fraud or mentally deranged.

The "inspired fiction" theory, on the other than . . . 

Thanks,

-Smac

I'll give you a hint: the second person I quoted believes it's "inspired fiction" and that its lack of historicity is irrelevant. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I guess I just can't see going to the judgment and having Jesus say, "Well, you kept your covenants, magnified your callings, followed the spirit, and lived an exemplary life of service to God and your neighbor, but sorry, you didn't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon." 

I don't think anyone here has suggested that. What has been argued is that it should not be evangelized, promuglated, taught or advocated in Church settings.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't think anyone here has suggested that. What has been argued is that it should not be evangelized, promuglated, taught or advocated in Church settings.

If it isn't pertinent to one's salvation, then why would it be anathema in church meetings?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'll give you a hint: the second person I quoted believes it's "inspired fiction" and that its lack of historicity is irrelevant. 

What you quoted does not entail acceptance of the "inspired fiction" theory.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If it isn't pertinent to one's salvation, then why would it be anathema in church meetings?

Asked and answered: its propensity to steer others up blind alleys and leave them vulnerable to faith-destroying criticisms. The same reason that any false doctrine is forbidden in Church settings.

Are you saying it should be allowed in Church meetings?

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, sorta.  The heartland theory pertains to an open question (the geography of the Book of Mormon).  The Church has not taken a position on this issue.

In contrast, the "inspired fiction" theory contravenes the Church's teachings about the Book of Mormon.  I'm not quite ready to characterize it as "false doctrine," but it seems awfully close to it.

 

True enough. Except that I have no hesitancy in identifying it as false doctrine.

 

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well yes, you have.  See here:

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

What did you mean when you wrote that? 

Your option #4 (as I've repeatedly stated) has been my experience with members and leaders with this belief.  That option does not conclude Joseph "was lying or was a fraud", does it?"

But, I'm truly done with this as you just keep stating the same things as if they are facts regardless of the examples I've given that disprove what you're claiming, IMO.  

Bottom line for me, is that in my experience, I have seen members who still believe Joseph was a Prophet, that he was not a liar or a fraud, and they also believe the Book of Mormon is inspired but that it is not historically factual (which falls in your #4 option).  

Really moving on now....

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Welcome ...welcome..now shut up.

Not at all. Just don't teach false doctrine at Church.

Reasonable enough.

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Asked and answered: it's propensity to steer others up blind alleys and leave them vulnerable to faith-destroying criticisms.

Are you saying it should be allowed in Church meetings?

I'm just wondering what the big deal is, though it might make Gospel Doctrine a little more interesting if stuff like this came up. The only way someone would succumb to "faith-destroying criticisms" would be that they were unnecessarily wedded to a rigid historicity. If you don't care whether the book is historical or not, you're not going to be bothered by horses and steel, for instance. 

I guess I've just been around liberal believers (and rigidly conservative ones, like my mother) all my life, and I've never cared much what specifics people believe in. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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. 

The JSP doesn't represent all the materials the church has, they are selectively releasing materials, but it is a step forward in a good direction, but doesn't represent total transparency. 

Your assertion "The Essays have been specifically explained as deliberately formulated to "inoculate" members against the depredations of the anti-Mormons." isn't accurate, but instead of answering my question and substantiating your point, you just ignore it.  Then you jump to accusing me of not carefully reading, without actually pointing out anything that I've misread.  This kind of exchange is condescending and disrespectful, and I would appreciate it if you'd stop it. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This apologetic effort also included books and articles by historians from the LDS Church Historical Dept on sensitive issues, such as the MMM.

I'm calling this complete bogus.  I think the openness is greater than in the past in certain respects, but its definitely not unlimited access, no way.  Think of Michael Quinn's recent book on corporate finances of the church.  He's definitely not an ANTI as you like to use that slur so much, and he didn't have access to the recent finances of the church, which he would have loved to use for his book I'm sure, he had to rely on notes from when he did have greater access back in the Camelot years. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I'm familiar with the four volume narrative history, and I'm familiar with church leaders using the term inoculate, I don't think I've heard the term immunize, I guess that's a similar term, and I've never heard someone state they would immunize/inoculate against anti-Mormons.  So if he did say those words explicitly I would like to see them in writing when his comments become available. 

Its odd to me that they would think this new narrative history will help inoculate people.  I've read the first four chapters available and it doesn't go into any great depth on troublesome history, its still a very positively spun tale, while more honest than narratives from the past, it doesn't come close to grappling with the implications of very complicated history and its still very apologetically written. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I'm just wondering what the big deal is, though it might make Gospel Doctrine a little more interesting if stuff like this came up. The only way someone would succumb to "faith-destroying criticisms" would be that they were unnecessarily wedded to a rigid historicity. If you don't care whether the book is historical or not, you're not going to be bothered by horses and steel, for instance. 

I guess I've just been around liberal believers (and rigidly conservative ones, like my mother) all my life, and I've never cared much what specifics people believe in. 

The "big deal" is that it creates more problems than it solves. If one never bothers to think it through, maybe that won't ever be an issue, but I don't think we can count on that. Countless members have fallen away because they were ambushed by anti-Mormons on matters about which they were woefully uninformed.

 

[smac97]

On 8/9/2018 at 2:33 PM, jkwilliams said:

I guess I just can't see going to the judgment and having Jesus say, "Well, you kept your covenants, magnified your callings, followed the spirit, and lived an exemplary life of service to God and your neighbor, but sorry, you didn't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon." 

I can't really see that either.  That is not my concern.  Rather, my concern is as follows:

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.

You seemed to admit to the same possibiliy when you said this:

Quote

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 agree with you.  That is the logical choice.  And I've seen it play out.  I have seen people for whom rejecting the historicity of the Book of Mormon was a fairly big part of their departure from the Church.

If a person were to reject the historicity of Jesus Christ, this too would be disconcerting.  Again, I have seen this play out as acquaintances have left the Church.

If Jesus Christ is fictional, then He is not the Son of God.  If so, then why make and keep covenants to obey Him?  Why profess faith in Him?  Why give His teachings any more credence than any other teacher of moral precepts?  His teachings may be useful, but then so are the teachings of Confucius and Buddha and Khalil Gibran and Dale Carnegie.  Helpful, but not necessary.

If the Book of Mormon is fictional, then we see a similar set of dominoes that will fall.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 2, 2020 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

The "big deal" is that it creates more problems than it solves. If one never bothers to think it through, maybe that won't ever be an issue, but I don't think we can count on that. Countless members have fallen away because they were ambushed by anti-Mormons on matters about which they were woefully uninformed.

Every person I have ever met who is an "inspired fiction" believer is someone who is quite well informed about the issues of historicity. In fact, it's the issues of historicity that have resulted in their conclusion that it's not historical. We're not talking about a bunch of ignorant rubes who are ambushed by the evil anti-Mormons. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I can't really see that either.  That is not my concern.  Rather, my concern is as follows:

You seemed to admit to the same possibiliy when you said this:

I agree with you.  That is the logical choice.  And I've seen it play out.  I have seen people for whom rejecting the historicity of the Book of Mormon was a fairly big part of their departure from the Church.

If a person were to reject the historicity of Jesus Christ, this too would be disconcerting.  Again, I have seen this play out as acquaintances have left the Church.

If Jesus Christ is fictional, then He is not the Son of God.  If so, then why make and keep covenants to obey Him?  Why profess faith in Him?  Why give His teachings any more credence than any other teacher of moral precepts?  His teachings may be useful, but then so are the teachings of Confucius and Buddha and Khalil Gibran and Dale Carnegie.  Helpful, but not necessary.

If the Book of Mormon if fictional, then we see a similar set of dominoes that will fall.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think that's true for some people, but for the many believers I know in the "inspired fiction" camp, it's not a domino at all. Maybe the problem is that you think that last domino will inevitably fall, but the experience of a lot of people suggests that's not correct.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Well yes, you have.  See here:

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

What did you mean when you wrote that? 

Your option #4 (as I've repeatedly stated) has been my experience with members and leaders with this belief. 

Joseph Smith really was visited by Moroni?  The resurrected Nephite?  The race of people that, according to the "inspired fiction" theory, never existed?

Joseph Smith really was guided to an authentically ancient artifact?  A set of gold plates, which were a record of a people that, according to the "inspired fiction" theory, never existed?

Where did these plates come from?  According to Joseph Smith, they came from the Nephites.  According to the "inspired fiction" theory, they either never existed or were fabricated in the 19th century.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That option does not conclude Joseph "was lying or was a fraud", does it?"

No, but it necessarily requires a rejection of the "inspired fiction" theory.  If Joseph Smith was telling the truth, then the Book of Mormon was not fictional.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But, I'm truly done with this as you just keep stating the same things as if they are facts regardless of the examples I've given that disprove what you're claiming, IMO.  

Bottom line for me, is that in my experience, I have seen members who still believe Joseph was a Prophet, that he was not a liar or a fraud, and they also believe the Book of Mormon is inspired but that it is not historically factual (which falls in your #4 option).  

Really moving on now....

I am glad they are able to make that work for them.  I don't think it will be an enduring thing, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Every person I have ever met who is an "inspired fiction" believer is someone who is quite well informed about the issues of historicity. In fact, it's the issues of historicity that have resulted in their conclusion that it's not historical. We're not talking about a bunch of ignorant rubes who are ambushed by the evil anti-Mormons. 

Then I don't get their logic. It is untenable.

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think that's true for some people, but for the many believers I know in the "inspired fiction" camp, it's not a domino at all. Maybe the problem is that you think that last domino will inevitably fall, but the experience of a lot of people suggests that's not correct.

Well, I hope you are right.  Truly.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Well, I hope you are right.  Truly.

Thanks,

-Smac

From my perspective, it's a choice to accept the Book of Mormon on faith, despite its lack of historicity. It would be difficult for me to pull that off, but I applaud people who choose to have faith, despite what they have concluded about the evidence. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then I don't get their logic. It is untenable.

I don't think it's necessarily about logic but rather about choosing to have faith. 

[smac97]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

From my perspective, it's a choice to accept the Book of Mormon on faith, despite its lack of historicity.

From my perspective, that's like saying "It's a choice to accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God, despite the fact that he never existed and was just the figment of someone's imagination."

From Elder Oaks:

Quote

"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.)

Conversely, if the historicity of Jesus Christ is intrinsic to His status as our Savior, then I think we can say that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is intrinsic to its status as revealed scripture.

Just now, jkwilliams said:

It would be difficult for me to pull that off, but I applaud people who choose to have faith, despite what they have concluded about the evidence. 

Same here.

I will not, once again, that I have no interest in pushing such people out of the Church.  Quite the contrary, I want them to stay in it.  I think the chances of them staying in it are better if they jettison the "inspired fiction" theory.

Thanks,

-Smac