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

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

This is the most common response I receive from members.
But if #3, and an authentically ancient record of the Son of God as these villagers claim, what then?

I'm not sure what you mean by "what then."  What does the record say?  If we don't know that, we can't really respond to "what then" in any meaningful way.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rajah Manchou]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Karen plate has been cited at least twice in LDS publications.  See here and here.

The Karen plate mentioned in those publications is not the translation of the golden book. This bundle is the translation of the golden book.

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "what then."  What does the record say?  If we don't know that, we can't really respond to "what then" in any meaningful way.

If it is #3, an authentic ancient record that testifies of Christ, then a meaningful response is not possible until we know what it says? It hasn't been translated into English yet, I was told that it can't be translated into English, not until a meaningful response comes from those who want to know what it says. 

Do we need to know what the text says in order to resolve our trilemma? What exactly do you need to know about the text in order to determine whether or not the text is the product of (1) madness, (2) badness or (3) godliness?

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The Karen plate mentioned in those publications is not the translation of the golden book. This bundle is the translation of the golden book.

Okay.  I was confused.

7 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

If it is #3, an authentic ancient record that testifies of Christ, then a meaningful response is not possible until we know what it says?

It hasn't been translated into English yet, I was told that it can't be translated into English, not until a meaningful response comes from those who want to know what it says. 

I am confused again.  How do we know it "testifies of Christ" if we do not know "what it says?"

7 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Do we need to know what the text says in order to resolve our trilemma?

That would be a meaningful contribution, yes.

7 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

What exactly do you need to know about the text in order to determine whether or not the text is the product of (1) madness, (2) badness or (3) godliness?

For starters, I need to know what the text says.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

4 hours ago, Alan said:

That, of course, presents us with the problem that 11 other people saw them.

We're talking about the trilemma and how things fit into that, not the veracity of the truth claims.

However, I'll admit that I am not impressed or convinced by the testimonies of the 11 witnesses. But again, that's not really what we're talking about here.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Think of it as a sort of "differential diagnosis" exercise.

The trilemma doesn't really "prove" anything.  It's a framework.

In the end, I think all options for explaining the origins of the Book of Mormon boil down to the trilemma.

But all variations on the three set forth in the trilemma.

Not really.  Taves proposes that Joseph fabricated the plates, then asked God to sanctify them, "to materialize them into the ancient gold plates."  That would still make Joseph Smith a fraud (Option B), since he claims he didn't fabricate the plates, and instead found them buried in the earth.  He claims that the plates were ancient artifacts, not a recent fabrication.  And what does it mean "to materialize them into the ancient gold plates," anyway?  How is it that plates fabricated in the 19th century could be converted into "ancient gold plates?"  Taves's theory is akin to saying "Joseph Smith asked God to create a square with no corners, water with no oxygen molecules in it, and sunlit darkness."  These things are inherently contradictory. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry, it seems VERY simplistic to me.

Taves herself does not think Joseph was a fraud, and billions of Catholics believe that bread becomes the body of Christ after 5 words are spoken and they certainly did not "fabricate" the body of Christ. They believe there is an actual physical change of matter, while retaining the appearance of bread. Similarly Joseph could have disconnected his previous activity with what the plates became. It happens in Catholic churches every single day.

What he fabricated was gone and what God made was before him. Perhaps he reburied what he fabricated and then found what God had made. Or even more likely to me he found what someone else fabricated and buried and then that person suggested where to find the plates. 

Using this reasoning every Vision claim ever made by anyone anywhere could be a fraud. Of course they could all be frauds or not, but the trilemma does not help me decide which they were.

Far too simplistic for me, I see a LOT of alternate explanations.

Edited September 7, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Rajah Manchou]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How do we know it "testifies of Christ" if we do not know "what it says?"

Those who have read the text have shared some of the contents. In short, its full of legends about the creation, God (Ywa) and the son of God.

It would not be accurate to say the text is a product of a lunatic or a liar. But its also not accurate to claim the text is what it claims to be.

The best option available to us is that it is a legend, and has nothing to do with the "translator" who made claims that these legends came from a golden book revealed by an angel, appearing letter by letter on a glowing rock.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Those who have read the text have shared some of the contents. In short, its full of legends about the creation, God (Ywa) and the son of God.

I'd like to read the text.

Quote

It would not be accurate to say the text is a product of a lunatic or a liar. But its also not accurate to claim the text is what it claims to be.

I can't really make an assessment unless I have more information, including the text.

Quote

The best option available to us is that it is a legend, and has nothing to do with the "translator" who made claims that these legends came from a golden book revealed by an angel, appearing letter by letter on a glowing rock.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry, it seems VERY simplistic to me.

Taves herself does not think Joseph was a fraud,

I think she does.  She may dance around the word.  She may characterize him as a sincere and pious fraud, but it's still fraud.

Joseph Smith's statements about the plates are either fraudulent, or the result of insanity/delusion, or they are the truth.

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

and billions of Catholics believe that bread becomes the body of Christ after 5 words are spoken and they certainly did not "fabricate" the body of Christ. They believe there is an actual physical change of matter, while retaining the appearance of bread.

Yes.  And?

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Similarly Joseph could have disconnected his previous activity with what the plates became. It happens in Catholic churches every single day.

I don't understand.

Joseph Smith claimed the plates were ancient, not modern.  That he found them, not that he created them.  

If Taves is right, Joseph Smith made false (fraudulent) statements (or we can go with the deluded/insane/deceived explanation).

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What he fabricated was gone and what God made was before him.

But he never claimed that he fabricated them.  He claimed X.  Taves is suggesting Not-X.  If Taves is right, Joseph Smith lied or was deluded/insane.

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Perhaps he reburied what he fabricated and then found what God had made.

Then he lied about Moroni.  Still fraud.

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Or even more likely to me he found what someone else fabricated and buried and then that person suggested where to find the plates. 

Then he lied about Moroni.  Still fraud.

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Far too simplistic for me, I see a LOT of alternate explanations.

I see a lot of variations on the trilemma.  That's all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rajah Manchou]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'd like to read the text. I can't really make an assessment unless I have more information, including the text.

I would too, I've been trying for two years.
They won't allow the text to be translated until the translator demonstrates he is sincerely interested in the contents, and is not a lunatic or a liar.
I haven't been able to demonstrate that yet : )

[HappyJackWagon]

I'll also note that there is a massive difference between CS Lewis's trilemma about Jesus, and application to Joseph Smith. Jesus was perfect. He was deity. So if he was not what he said he was he was either lunatic or liar. On the other hand, Joseph Smith was not perfect and not deity. That means he had many personal shortcoming. He sinned. His body and mind were imperfect. It is possible he could make his claims in good faith, yet be wrong. It is possible he was a combination of all of the trilemma issues + more. Joseph was not in the same ballpark as Jesus so the comparison just doesn't work.

 

[Thinking]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

People frequently get ripped off by people who seem sincere, so this argument doesn't fly.

[blueglass]

7 hours ago, Alan said:

That, of course, presents us with the problem that 11 other people saw them.

The eight witnesses authorized a statement that says they examined an artifact with "engravings" which had the "appearance of ancient work", and "curious workmanship".  These were farmers with no experience with ancient languages.  If I show my high school friends pages of equations which I say have solutions to the Schrodinger equation when in fact they are machine learning mathematics pertaining to vapnik-chervonenkis theory - how would they know?  The plates were hidden from examination, the witnesses were only given a few minutes to examine, experts were not allowed to see them, they were 2/3 sealed, they were unavailable for study after the book of mormon published.  If we had expert witnesses such as Samuel Mitchell, Caleb Atwater,  Samuel Rafinesque, who were permitted to investigate the artifact then we would have something more important.  If the church preserved the artifact through the generations, and stored in a vault in SLC or on high-security display, then more people would likely take an interest in the book of mormon and the restoration movement.  What the Lord preserved are brown and white seer stones, and the joseph smith papyrus fragments he bought.  What is the Lord's design and will in all of this?  Is the Lord intentionally making it more difficult for rational, scientific, educated type people to believe, either because he does not want them in his church, or because he wants a small church?  

Edited September 7, 2018 by blueglass

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think she does.  She may dance around the word.  She may characterize him as a sincere and pious fraud, but it's still fraud.

Joseph Smith's statements about the plates are either fraudulent, or the result of insanity/delusion, or they are the truth.

I think Taves' position is that he was sincere and pious but deluded. The acts that many see as fraudulent were for him actualizing what he saw in his vision. So he wasn't fraudulent. I personally don't think this works, mind you, since he doesn't portray the experience in that fashion. So I think logically he'd still be fraudulent just not fraudulent about the key things. But that's not Taves' position as I understand it after reading her book.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, blueglass said:

The eight witnesses authorized a statement that says they examined an artifact with "engravings" which had the "appearance of ancient work", and "curious workmanship".  These were farmers with no experience with ancient languages.  If I show my high school friends pages of equations which I say have solutions to the Schrodinger equation when in fact they are machine learning mathematics pertaining to vapnik-chervonenkis theory - how would they know?  The plates were hidden from examination, the witnesses were only given a few minutes to examine, experts were not allowed to see them, they were 2/3 sealed, they were unavailable for study after the book of mormon published.  If we had expert witnesses such as Samuel Mitchell, Caleb Atwater,  Samuel Rafinesque, who were permitted to investigate the artifact then we would have something more important.  If the church preserved the artifact through the generations, and stored in a vault in SLC or on high-security display, then more people would likely take an interest in the book of mormon and the restoration movement.  What the Lord preserved are brown and white seer stones, and the joseph smith papyrus fragments he bought.  What is the Lord's design and will in all of this?  Is the Lord intentionally making it more difficult for rational, scientific, educated type people to believe, either because he does not want them in his church, or because he wants a small church?  

IMO- Joseph Smith seemed to be a very gifted story teller. I believe he led people in vision, describing what he saw and asking if they saw it too. Either they were caught up in the spirit, or the excitement of a fantasy, but I have a hard time getting past the idea that they saw it with their "spiritual eyes". I know smart people can/will disagree, but I don't believe the witnesses actually saw or held plates. In my mind they are not reliable witnesses.

Edited September 7, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

I see a lot of variations on the trilemma.  That's all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, that's clear.

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

 

Quote

That's more of a flight of fancy than a serious inquiry.

And it still folds into Option B (fraud), because it contravenes what Joseph Smith said about the plates.

And it's not a particularly serious hypothetical.  God, the "God of Truth," instructed Joseph Smith to fabricate plates and then lie and tell everyone around him that they are of ancient derivation?  God sent an angel to show the fabricated-in-the-19th-century plates to the Three Witnesses?  And told them to bear testimony about these fabricated-in-the-19th-century plates being "a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared," when in fact they were created by Joseph Smith?

My post was meant to introduce some possibilities that mix fraud with actual divine interventenion. Your reaction quoted above I think illustrates why you are so opposed to the inspired fiction idea.  Your conception of God essentially rules out the possibility.

There are other conceptions of God that would allow for it, however. Following are two possibible conceptions of God that maybe belong in a different thread:

- God could be pragmatic in catering to human understanding to do whatever it is He wants to get done. It could be that He’s not beyond letting people believe that fiction is non-fiction if it gets the job done.

- God could be more of an internal force than an external. In other words experience with the divine could be more of an interaction with the subjective self rather than a more objective reality yet still produce the miraculous. An objection may be when JS and another like Cowdery shared a spiritual experience, but then the report of Sidney Rigdon’s and JS’s D&C 76 vision provides enough footing to see how those shared experiences may have occurred while still being created internally.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Benjamin Seeker

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think Taves' position is that he was sincere and pious but deluded. The acts that many see as fraudulent were for him actualizing what he saw in his vision. So he wasn't fraudulent.

He was so mentally insane/deluded that he lacked sufficient mes reas to form fraudulent intent?  Okay.  I can see that.  But it still falls within the trilemma (insane/deluded/deceived).

41 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I personally don't think this works, mind you, since he doesn't portray the experience in that fashion.

Nor I.  And we're still left with affirmative misstatements of fact by him.  And the witnesses.  

41 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

So I think logically he'd still be fraudulent just not fraudulent about the key things. But that's not Taves' position as I understand it after reading her book.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[clarkgoble]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He was so mentally insane/deluded that he lacked sufficient mes reas to form fraudulent intent?  Okay.  I can see that.  But it still falls within the trilemma (insane/deluded/deceived).

I don't think that's the argument. Remember Taves' big thing is looking at elements of cognitive science to explain religious experience particularly those like speaking in tongues or the like. Is a Pentacostal speaking in tongues fraudulent or delusional? Neither description really fits. 

I think with regards to Joseph she thinks he was having "real to him" visions of angels and so forth. So he sees the plates in hill with "spiritual eyes." i.e. they weren't there. This is delusional of a sort, but no more than say the Pentacostal speaking in tongues. The leap, as I said, is the idea that he then has to make plates that match the vision to actualize them. This is common in more neoplatonic traditions - especially back in pagan times. I think it a big leap for Taves. Here main argument here is a somewhat pejorative description of Joseph by his uncle. She has no real sources arguing that Joseph was actually doing this.

Where fraud would then enter in, wouldn't be in the construction of the plates or "translation" of the Book of Mormon in her eyes. At best it'd be exaggerating the nature of finding the plates.

Again let me again say I don't think this works in the least. I completely understand why some like the idea - particularly those trying to maintain some grasp on Mormonism while denying the reality of Nephites. But to me it's rather dubious. That said it definitely is a middle ground between the faithful view, the fraudulent view, and the delusional view. After all the initial vision, a faithful person might argue, was real in terms of coming from God. It's a way to ground the inspired fiction model to the historical evidence - which honestly is pretty hard.

[blueglass]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO- Joseph Smith seemed to be a very gifted story teller. I believe he led people in vision, describing what he saw and asking if they saw it too. Either they were caught up in the spirit, or the excitement of a fantasy, but I have a hard time getting past the idea that they saw it with their "spiritual eyes". I know smart people can/will disagree, but I don't believe the witnesses actually saw or held plates. In my mind they are not reliable witnesses.

For me I'm leaning towards two sets of plates.  One a visionary set of artifacts allowed by D&Cov 17 and the other set a physical artifact he found treasure digging.  This is similar to what Jan Shipps wrote, that Joseph did not manufacture plates as a prop but that he did find some native american or masonic artifact.   Although not official witnesses there were a few people who handled, touched, or hefted a physical artifact.  Josiah Stowell, William Smith, and Emma describe moving something around, or touching an object with plates through cloth. 

The testimony of eight witnesses is all in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting - including the signatures. 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/printers-manuscript-of-the-book-of-mormon-circa-august-1829-circa-january-1830/468#foot-notes

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

The testimony of eight witnesses is all in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting - including the signatures. 

Worth noting though that many gave their own testimonies and held to them until the end of their lives. I think it fair to criticize the testimony in the Book of Mormon as Oliver's work. However that doesn't mean they weren't witnesses.

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

For me I'm leaning towards two sets of plates.  One a visionary set of artifacts allowed by D&Cov 17 and the other set a physical artifact he found treasure digging.  This is similar to what Jan Shipps wrote, that Joseph did not manufacture plates as a prop but that he did find some native american or masonic artifact.   Although not official witnesses there were a few people who handled, touched, or hefted a physical artifact.  Josiah Stowell, William Smith, and Emma describe moving something around, or touching an object with plates through cloth. 

Stowell goes further than just touching it. He glanced at a corner. "...it resembled a stone of a greenish caste; should judge it to have been about one foot square and six inches thick; he would not let it be seen by any one; the Lord had commanded him not; it was unknown to Smith, that witness saw a corner of the Bible, so called by Smith" (“Mormonism,” New England Christian Herald 4, no. 6) So it seems like Stowell saw a corner and it had a patina to it.

 

[Calm]

So did John Whitmer who said he couldn’t understand the writing

[blueglass]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

So did John Whitmer who said he couldn’t understand the writing

From Michael MacKay's paper he writes that early in the translation process in 1827 - 1828, the Lord instructed Joseph to make an alphabet by copying the characters from the plates and sending them out to scholars for translation.  He was “to take off a facsimile of the alphabet composing the characters Alphabetically and send them to all the learned men that he could find and ask them for the translation of the same.” (Lucy Mack Smith, History 1844–15, book 6, [7])  Also in Harmony, PA December 1828, he wrote he “commenced copying the characters of[f] all the plates.”

Knight Sr. wrote, “He went to Albeny and to Philadelpha and to new york and he found men that Could Translate some of the Carictors in all those places. Mitchel [Samuel L. Mitchill] and Anthony [Charles Anthon] of New York ware the most Larded [learned] But there were some Caricters they could not well understand.”  The best experts in Philadelphia were Rafinesque and Atwater.  Anthon was not knowledgeable in Egyptian or native american languages.  He was not a good choice on determining the authenticity of the characters.  I wish we knew more of the conversations between Martin and his wife Lucy after Mitchell said the characters were not decipherable.  Likely caused a lot of doubt on whether to move forward financially supporting the project.   Martin had to weigh the evidence from scholars and downplay Mitchell's assessment and bias in favor of what little he could from the Anthon interaction.  Mitchell would certainly be the one to get buy in on a transcript review of the book of mormon before publication.  

Rafinesque later wrote a paper denouncing Ethan Smith's view of the hebrews and the book of mormon with a paper in the Atlantic Journal in 1832 entitled "THE  AMERICAN  NATIONS  AND  TRIBES ARE  NOT  JEWS."  He considered the book of mormon based on junk science. 

[Calm]

Not sure how that responded to my comment, which was only about doing more than just touching.

Edited September 8, 2018 by Calm

[jpv]

On 9/6/2018 at 9:19 AM, 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

Jeffrey R. Holland does quote this about the Book of Mormon in his first talk as an apostle to CES. It's still my favorite talk of his.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, jpv said:

Jeffrey R. Holland does quote this about the Book of Mormon in his first talk as an apostle to CES. It's still my favorite talk of his.

Could you provide a link?   

Here's an interesting blog post on this topic: http://www.chriswei.com/blog//a-defense-of-two-trilemmas