Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

CS Lewis's Trilemma - Applied to Joseph Smith / The Book of Mormon / "Inspired Fiction"


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm surprised I've never really thought about this before.  First, let's review what the trilemma is:

It seems this trilemma can be adapted to apply as a rebuttal to the "Inspired Fiction" theory.  The Book of Mormon is either A) the work product of an insane/deluded person ("Lunatic"), B) the work product of a duplicitous, dishonest person ("Liar"), or C) what it claims to be: an ancient prophetic record preserved and translated "by the gift and power of God" ("Lord").

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Not to be picky, but I think there is a fourth option - that it was at least partially channeled through an evil spirit. I believe for example the Urantia Book is one such example, and I believe there are others.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm surprised I've never really thought about this before.  First, let's review what the trilemma is:

It seems this trilemma can be adapted to apply as a rebuttal to the "Inspired Fiction" theory.  The Book of Mormon is either A) the work product of an insane/deluded person ("Lunatic"), B) the work product of a duplicitous, dishonest person ("Liar"), or C) what it claims to be: an ancient prophetic record preserved and translated "by the gift and power of God" ("Lord").

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Or could it be a combination of the 3?

1-Joseph was inspired in some things but not all, and he couldn't always tell the difference (Lunatic)

2-Joseph had some ulterior motives in writing and publishing as a means of earning some $$$ from its sale. But he put his best religious thinking into the book in an attempt to make it meaningful and spiritual. (liar in motive, but good intentions)- We know he lied about other things with presumably good intentions. Perhaps he didn't really have physical plates (lie) but felt he was inspired to write it for the benefit of men.

3-Joseph believed he was inspired to write the text and believed it was a true reflection of the true origins of the Native American peoples who were real. This could be seen as both Lord and Lunatic. It's unprovable so it's a matter of faith.

IOW- I don't believe it's a trilemma. I think it would be too simple to think that Joseph was just one thing, Lunatic, Liar, Lord. I suspect he was a combination of all of them.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Not to be picky, but I think there is a fourth option - that it was at least partially channeled through an evil spirit.

I think that counts as deluded since they are fooled by the evil spirit into thinking it is a good thing...

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Or could it be a combination of the 3?

1-Joseph was inspired in some things but not all, and he couldn't always tell the difference (Lunatic)

The Book of Mormon is the product of both inspiration from God and Joseph Smith's mental insanity?

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

2-Joseph had some ulterior motives in writing and publishing as a means of earning some $$$ from its sale. But he put his best religious thinking into the book in an attempt to make it meaningful and spiritual. (liar in motive, but good intentions)- We know he lied about other things with presumably good intentions. Perhaps he didn't really have physical plates (lie) but felt he was inspired to write it for the benefit of men.

That doesn't account for the witnesses, though.  

And, in the end, it's still a monstrous lie, even with theoretical "good intentions."  I'm not sure how you can characterize "earning some $$$ from its sale" as "good intentions," though.

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

3-Joseph believed he was inspired to write the text and believed it was a true reflection of the true origins of the Native American peoples who were real. This could be seen as both Lord and Lunatic. It's unprovable so it's a matter of faith.

"Joseph believed he was inspired" when he was not folds back into the "Lunatic" option.

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IOW- I don't believe it's a trilemma.

Well, sure.  We could add endless options.  Perhaps bug-eyed aliens from the Klaatu Nebula fabricated the plates and used advanced technology to dupe Joseph and the witnesses.

But even then, that would fold back into the "insane/deluded" option.

So it seems that all of the permutations end up distilling down to the trilemma.

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it would be too simple to think that Joseph was just one thing, Lunatic, Liar, Lord. I suspect he was a combination of all of them.

I don't see any evidence of mental illness in him.  And while he had some frailties and weaknesses, I can't think of any deceptions about the origins of The Book of Mormon.  

So if he wasn't deluded/insane, and if he didn't lie about the origins of the Book of Mormon, that leaves . . . that the Book is what it claims to be: an ancient prophetic record preserved and translated "by the gift and power of God."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Not to be picky, but I think there is a fourth option - that it was at least partially channeled through an evil spirit.

That would fall within the "insane/deluded" option, I think.

Joseph Smith gave every indication that he was completely sincere in his explanations as to the origins of the Book of Mormon.  So the "Liar" explanation seems the least likely.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

..........................................

It seems this trilemma can be adapted to apply as a rebuttal to the "Inspired Fiction" theory.  The Book of Mormon is either A) the work product of an insane/deluded person ("Lunatic"), B) the work product of a duplicitous, dishonest person ("Liar"), or C) what it claims to be: an ancient prophetic record preserved and translated "by the gift and power of God" ("Lord").  .....................

Lewis's trilemma begs the question:  We do not in fact know as a matter of historical fact what Jesus taught.  We have only documents about him by others.  Historians agree that he existed, but do not know much beyond that.  For that reason, Jesus is a matter of faith.

As to the Book of Mormon, we do not know who did the EModE translation -- which Joseph read to his scribes -- nor whether it is a real, historical document created by ancient New World peoples, or merely a well-intentioned pseudepigraphon (of which there are many).  What is unique about the Book of Mormon is that it contains a multitude of testable historical claims.  If it can be shown to be empirically true (by at least the preponderance of evidence), then it backs up the otherwise dubious claims by and about Jesus.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Lewis's trilemma begs the question:  We do not in fact know as a matter of historical fact what Jesus taught.  We have only documents about him by others.  Historians agree that he existed, but do not know much beyond that.  For that reason, Jesus is a matter of faith.

Yes.

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As to the Book of Mormon, we do not know who did the EModE translation -- which Joseph read to his scribes -- nor whether it is a real, historical document created by ancient New World peoples, or merely a well-intentioned pseudepigraphon (of which there are many).  What is unique about the Book of Mormon is that it contains a multitude of testable historical claims.  If it can be shown to be empirically true (by at least the preponderance of evidence), then it backs up the otherwise dubious claims by and about Jesus.

Yep.  I have previously said something similar.  I've called it the "Transmission Gap Theory."  See here:

Quote

Some folks familiar with the LDS Church like to compare and contrast the relative "scientific" (read: archaeological) evidences for the Book of Mormon as compared to the Bible. One of the points that frequently gets noted is that evidence of antiquity or historicity doesn't necessarily (or even probably) translate into evidence of divinity.

...

William Hamblin was on a radio program and had the following exchange with a caller:

  Quote
William Hamblin: Let me give you an example for instance. The name Alma in Joseph Smith's day was a typical woman's name. Joseph Smith uses it in the BoM for a male. And since that time we have discovered in Hebrew manuscripts that Alma was in fact a perfectly decent name for a Hebrew male. Now, how would Joseph Smith know this? Same thing with Mosiah and Nephi,. All these names have been discovered. They are nonbiblical and yet they are authentic in the setting which the text claims to come from. So there are all sorts of histroical analyses you could do, I don't think you could prove it that way. We're not claiming proof for the Book of mormon. We are claiming some level of plausibility.

Caller: What I'm saying is that in the Bible I can see the maps of Israel, I can see the maps of of, all types of maps.

William Hamblin: Suppose that, well I could show you map where Troy was. Does that prove that Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus?

Caller: Well, that has nothing to do with our subject.

William Hamblin: It is precisely to do with our subject. I mean Homer claimed that he had wrote a book about the doings of all the Greek gods. We have now autheticated that in fact the city Homer talked about existed. All the cities Homer talked about existed. It is perfectly good history. Now does that prove Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus?

I wonder, though, if this argument yields the same result for the Book of Mormon as it does for the Bible.

The distinction I see between the two is the method of transmission. Speaking broadly, the Bible has a discernable historical pedigree, a pedigree wherein the text can be historically traced back, without significant gaps, to antiquity (though not necessarily to the original authors). This historical pedigree, coupled with the fact that some toponymns mentioned in the Bible are verified or verifiable...makes the Bible comparable in many ways to other ancient texts.

The rejoinder to this is that a historical pedigree + some archaeological verification does not equal evidence in favor of the Bible's truth claims. As Hamblin noted, The Odyssey has a historical pedigree and some archaeological verification, but that doesn't mean that the descriptions of the supernatural in Homer's work are factual.

But what about the Book of Mormon? Could its lack of a traceable historical pedigree + some archaeological verification actually work in its favor? Skeptics aren't persuaded that the Bible's historical pedigree or archaeological finds (like the Pool of Siloam that was recently discovered) mean anything precisely because those things are discernable without looking to God for an explanation (just like we can discern the historical pedigree and/or archaeological verification of The Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.).

However, the Book of Mormon belies these assumptions. There is a built-in gap, a giant one, in the transmission process for that book. So if (and this is a really big "if") we someday discover persuasive archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon (evidence of toponyms, for example), then the argument used against the Bible wouldn't work.

...

The gap in the historical transmission of the text could only be bridged by divine intervention. So archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, if found, would have a far more persuasive impact on the veracity of that book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm surprised I've never really thought about this before.  First, let's review what the trilemma is:

It seems this trilemma can be adapted to apply as a rebuttal to the "Inspired Fiction" theory.  The Book of Mormon is either A) the work product of an insane/deluded person ("Lunatic"), B) the work product of a duplicitous, dishonest person ("Liar"), or C) what it claims to be: an ancient prophetic record preserved and translated "by the gift and power of God" ("Lord").

A - I'm not how anyone can conclusively prove A is true or false.  Who decides what makes a person insane?  As for delusion, how deluded was he, and how could that be measured.  Every human is deluded to a certain extent, but who gets to deside how deluded we all are, and was Joseph more deluded than the average person in the 21st century, or was he more deluded than the average person in his neck of the woods.  

B - Dishonesty is another criteria that its hard to measure.  Everyone is dishonest to a certain extent, but how dishonest was Joseph compared to others.  

C - We can use the tools of science to determine how the events of the BoM square up with history to some extent.  So this third criteria so far has been failing the test.  

I do agree with others that the circumstances and motivations of Joseph are likely much more complex and can't be distilled neatly into these three categories.  I also agree that their are elements of all three that likely have some validity depending on your perspective.  

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:
Quote

I'm surprised I've never really thought about this before.  First, let's review what the trilemma is:

It seems this trilemma can be adapted to apply as a rebuttal to the "Inspired Fiction" theory.  The Book of Mormon is either A) the work product of an insane/deluded person ("Lunatic"), B) the work product of a duplicitous, dishonest person ("Liar"), or C) what it claims to be: an ancient prophetic record preserved and translated "by the gift and power of God" ("Lord").

A - I'm not how anyone can conclusively prove A is true or false. 

I agree.  I don't think anyone is proposing conclusive proof one way or the other.  That said, Joseph Smith left behind a sizeable body of writings, and we also have extensive descriptions of him from his contemporaries.  Characterizing him as mentally insane is simply not supported by the historical record.

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Who decides what makes a person insane?  As for delusion, how deluded was he, and how could that be measured.  Every human is deluded to a certain extent, but who gets to deside how deluded we all are, and was Joseph more deluded than the average person in the 21st century, or was he more deluded than the average person in his neck of the woods.  

But for all that, we still have The Book of Mormon.  Calling it the product of delusion is certainly possible.  But it's the weakest and laziest assessment out there.

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

B - Dishonesty is another criteria that its hard to measure.  Everyone is dishonest to a certain extent, but how dishonest was Joseph compared to others.  

The point I was trying to emphasize was the honesty/dishonesty of Joseph Smith about the origins of The Book of Mormon.

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

C - We can use the tools of science to determine how the events of the BoM square up with history to some extent.  So this third criteria so far has been failing the test.  

Well, reasonable minds can disagree about that.  I think The Book of Mormon holds up remarkably well to reasoned scrutiny.

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I do agree with others that the circumstances and motivations of Joseph are likely much more complex and can't be distilled neatly into these three categories. 

Again, my emphasis was intended to address the circumstances and motivations of Joseph as pertaining to the origins of The Book of Mormon.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

................The gap in the historical transmission of the text could only be bridged by divine intervention. So archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, if found, would have a far more persuasive impact on the veracity of that book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims................

Exactly.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

2-Joseph had some ulterior motives in writing and publishing as a means of earning some $$$ from its sale. But he put his best religious thinking into the book in an attempt to make it meaningful and spiritual. 

This is the second time this past month on this board that I've seen the claim Joseph did what he did for money.  Am I missing something here?  I was under the impression that there was never a time in the whole of his life, that Joseph was financially stable/secure.

Link to comment

It's a false trilemma to begin with, so not a great argument for either Jesus or the BOM.

Regarding Lewis' specific argument, it doesn't even track historically, because it's unlikely Jesus actually claimed to be divine in his own lifetime. It is widely believed that the evangelists (esp John) put that kind of language in his mouth in order to express their own theological views of Jesus. That doesn't mean that Jesus WASN'T divine, it just means that Jesus didn't claim that about himself in life.

 

Edited by Gray
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, SteveO said:

This is the second time this past month on this board that I've seen the claim Joseph did what he did for money.  Am I missing something here?  I was under the impression that there was never a time in the whole of his life, that Joseph was financially stable/secure.

Failure to be financially secure doesn't mean it wasn't a goal ;) 

I was specifically referring to the efforts to sell the book of Mormon copyright.

Quote

SMAC97-  I don't see any evidence of mental illness in him.  And while he had some frailties and weaknesses, I can't think of any deceptions about the origins of The Book of Mormon. 

One doesn't need to be mentally ill to be delusional. Have you ever written a talk or a paper or gave a speech that you feel was inspired? Where did the inspiration end and SMAC97's own mind and emotion mix in. I think it's very possible and not at all uncommon that Joseph could have been inspired in some things yet not recognize where that inspiration ended and Joseph's own intellect and imagination took over. I think it's a very difficult thing to separate ones own thoughts, beliefs, hopes, from what they feel is inspiration from God. That's what I was referring to.

I like the idea of the trilemma. I don't recall having ever heard of it referred to that way, but I just don't think a person can be reduced to A or B or C. IMO Joseph, like most of us, was a mix of A and B and C and D and...

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

One doesn't need to be mentally ill to be delusional.

Delusional: "Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness."

I think mental illness is the sort of delusion that most people have in mind when considering "delusion" as an explanation for Joseph Smith.

Quote

Have you ever written a talk or a paper or gave a speech that you feel was inspired?

Have I have written a talk based on the inscriptions on a set of ancient gold-colored plates, which I discovered after having been visited by an angel from heaven, and which plates I have translated "by the gift and power of God, and which plates were also attested to by at least eleven other people, none of whom have any indicia of mental illness, and many of whom were later alienated from me and deeply resented me, and hence had no reason to continue to support my claimed origins for the talk, and every reason to deny those claimed origins?  

No.

Quote

Where did the inspiration end and SMAC97's own mind and emotion mix in. I think it's very possible and not at all uncommon that Joseph could have been inspired in some things yet not recognize where that inspiration ended and Joseph's own intellect and imagination took over.

That doesn't account for the plates.  Or the witnesses.  Or the text.  Or the duration of the translation period.  And so on.

Quote

I think it's a very difficult thing to separate ones own thoughts, beliefs, hopes, from what they feel is inspiration from God.

Hence the necessity of addressing the situation we have with Joseph Smith, which involved more than just his ephemeral "thoughts, beliefs, hopes," etc.

Again, we need to account for the plates.  And the witnessess.  And the text.  And so on.

Quote

That's what I was referring to.

Okay.  But your comments are kind of apples and oranges.

Quote

I like the idea of the trilemma. I don't recall having ever heard of it referred to that way, but I just don't think a person can be reduced to A or B or C.

I agree.  But again, my comments were intended to evaluage Joseph Smith as pertaining to his claims about the origins of The Book of Mormon.  As to that issue, I think we can reduce the options to A) the book being work product of an insane/deluded person ("Lunatic" / insane/deluded/deceived), B) the book being the work product of a duplicitous, dishonest person ("Liar" / fraud), or C) the book being what it claims to be, and what Joseph claimed it to be: an ancient prophetic record preserved and translated "by the gift and power of God" ("Lord" / divine).

Quote

IMO Joseph, like most of us, was a mix of A and B and C and D and...

But what of The Book of Mormon?  I don't think it can simultaneously be A and B and C above.  Conclusions about Jesus Christ fall into Lewis's trilemma.  I think a similar trilemma exists for The Book of Mormon.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment

The Lord was more interested in preserving the brown and white seer stones than the U&T and breastplate, gold plates, liahona, and sword of laban.  None of the artifacts from the stone box on the hill are physically extant for analysis and scrutiny.   It is only by faith that you shall see the artifacts, D&Covenants 17:1-2, "it is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them, even by that faith which was had by the prophets of old."

The other artifact shown to the eight witnesses, as Josiah Stowell described after seeing "a corner of it [the golden Bible]; it resembled a stone of greenish caste" 

which was in the house, and moved around on the table by Emma during cleaning remains to be re-discovered.  Probably near the miner's hill cave according to David Whitmer. 

 

Edited by blueglass
Link to comment
5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm surprised I've never really thought about this before.  First, let's review what the trilemma is:

It seems this trilemma can be adapted to apply as a rebuttal to the "Inspired Fiction" theory.  The Book of Mormon is either A) the work product of an insane/deluded person ("Lunatic"), B) the work product of a duplicitous, dishonest person ("Liar"), or C) what it claims to be: an ancient prophetic record preserved and translated "by the gift and power of God" ("Lord").

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

The Book of Mormon is a type for Christ so it shouldn’t surprise anyone to see the same arguments work for both 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

But for all that, we still have The Book of Mormon.  Calling it the product of delusion is certainly possible.  But it's the weakest and laziest assessment out there.

I personally wouldn't use the words deluded or insane to characterize Joseph.  I would say he had a vivid imagination and that he learned that he could influence others based on his crafting stories.  I think he was largely caught up in his own creation, believing the veracity of his own tale.  I don't think it was delusion though, I think he was genuinely under the impression that God was working through him.  I think it was a co-creative effort from Joseph's perspective.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The point I was trying to emphasize was the honesty/dishonesty of Joseph Smith about the origins of The Book of Mormon.

So my first answer also answers this second question about honesty.  If he believed the product he produced was a co-creative effort with inspiration from God, then it can't be blatant dishonesty on his part.  

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm surprised I've never really thought about this before.  First, let's review what the trilemma is:

It seems this trilemma can be adapted to apply as a rebuttal to the "Inspired Fiction" theory.  The Book of Mormon is either A) the work product of an insane/deluded person ("Lunatic"), B) the work product of a duplicitous, dishonest person ("Liar"), or C) what it claims to be: an ancient prophetic record preserved and translated "by the gift and power of God" ("Lord").

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

It reminds me of what President Hinckley said:

Quote

We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith.

When I was interviewed by Mike Wallace on the 60 Minutes program, he asked me if I actually believed that. I replied, “Yes, sir. That’s the miracle of it.”

That is the way I feel about it. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/10/the-marvelous-foundation-of-our-faith?lang=eng

I find the approach simplistic. It seems designed to make people on the fence choose one side or the other. You might win some souls that way, but when you push somebody off the fence onto the other side, you can't cry victim when they denounce it all as an unadulterated fraud.

Edited by Analytics
Link to comment
1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I personally wouldn't use the words deluded or insane to characterize Joseph. 

Nor would I.  

What about "deceived?"

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I would say he had a vivid imagination and that he learned that he could influence others based on his crafting stories. 

So he "influenced" eleven men into testifying about the reality of the plates?  Including the Three Witnesses, all of whom were later alienated from Joseph Smith for decades (cumulatively), and who would have had every motive to "come clean" about having been "influenced" by Joseph Smith?

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I think he was largely caught up in his own creation, believing the veracity of his own tale. 

But that doesn't account for the plates.  And the testimonies of the Witnesses.  And the text itself.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think it was delusion though, I think he was genuinely under the impression that God was working through him. 

If God was "working through him," then that falls within Option C (he was a prophet, The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be).

If God was not "working through him," then that falls within Option A (insane / deluded / deceived).

The trilemma at work!

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It reminds me of what President Hinckley said:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/10/the-marvelous-foundation-of-our-faith?lang=eng

I find the approach simplistic. It seems designed to make people on the fence choose one side or the other.

Perhaps so.  Prophets are prone to doing that sort of thing.

  • "Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve."  (Alma 30:8)
  • "How long halt ye between atwo opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him."  (1 Kings 18:21)
  • "Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil."  (2 Nephi 2:27)
  • "Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life."  (2 Nephi 10:23)
  • "And now remember, remember, my brethren, that whosoever perisheth, perisheth unto himself; and whosoever doeth iniquity, doeth it unto himself; for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free."  (Helaman 14:30)
  • "Behold, here is wisdom, and let every man choose for himself until I come. Even so. Amen."  (D&C 37:4)

For me, this is not simplistic counsel.  It is concise.  And accurate.  And logical.  And good.

I'm reminded of this scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade:

"It's time to ask yourself what you believe."

Sooner or later, we all run into this.

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You might win some souls that way, but when you push somebody off the fence onto the other side, you can't cry victim when they denounce it all as nothing more than an unadulterated fraud.

I'm not advocating that anyone be "pushed."  Reasoning.  Persuasion.  Discussion.  Patience.  Hope.  The Spirit.  Invite and exhort.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...