Liberal Theology and Traditional Lds Apologetics

[Boanerges]

7 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

A symbolic Christ is inspiring in my life. I’ll never be a 100%-in Mormon, but I do derive meaning and spiritual belonging from my membership and participation. All of the arguments against inspired fiction or any kind of non-literalist interpretation because they undermine truth claims are simply not sound. I and others like me are living proof that non-literalist interpretations can work fine within Mormonism. Alright? I’ll go back and hide under my rock now.

I am of very like mind. 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

There is plenty of room to see Joseph's claimed visits in many ways, not the least of which is wishful thinking.  The stories appeared years after they supposedly happened.  Also, they were represented as dreams and visions.  There's no clear "God actually appeared to him".  And of course, the plates were useless props, not even used in the "translation".  

I never said people could not see the stories in different ways, so why are you acting like I did?

[Navidad]

I think that it would be helpful as others have said, to present an operational definition of the word "liberal." That is not a construct I have come across very often in my reading of LDS literature. It is common in non-LDS theological discussions, but even there has many different facets. I also think you might present an operational definition of the word "critic." I do believe there are many in and around the church who derive great spiritual benefit from it without needing to engage in apologetics. Last, I would opine that a key issue you have not mentioned for those having faith crises is the singularity and uniqueness of the church's self-identity within the Christian world. The very term faith crisis is amorphous and needs better understanding as well. The concern about faith crises seems to this observer to almost always boil down to concern about the person leaving the church. The existential nature of the crisis is much more tolerable to others if the person doesn't indicate a desire or need to leave. I also think that an interesting point in all of this is the recent data indicating that those who as a result of their "faith crises" leave the church, tend not to join another group, but become agnostic, or members of no other faith, at least until their "angry" season is over.  Certainly that says something about what is going on in their minds and hearts as they struggle.

[Tacenda]

I wonder when the church will quit trying to hide the past. I've heard that the essays are different on the new app. The following is a meme on the polygamy essay. I wonder why the church hasn't learned their lesson on hiding the warts? Or could this meme be made up?

Edited June 10, 2020 by Tacenda

[Calm]

It is a new app and you think it is intentional, seriously?  I really hope you have no one who gives you so little benefit of the doubt. 

What a horrible relationship to be in. Your partner always thinking the worse of any mistakes you make. 
 

The Church is not stupid enough to create an intentional glitch in hopes that the reader would lose interest. This is a great risk if the reader had questions, it the section could not be pulled up, that they would go looking elsewhere for answers and possibly from a different platform the Church did not provide. 

Edited June 10, 2020 by Calm

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I never said people could not see the stories in different ways, so why are you acting like I did?

My apologies, I didn't realize I was claiming you said anything.  My comment was meant to suggest how one could view Joseph's stories as something other than literal tangible events and still find room to appreciate the gospel messages.  

[Calm]

Tacenda, while that particular link does not work, the second link for that section that is at the bottom of the essay works just fine. None of the links in the body of the section work, while the same links work just fine at the bottom of the essay. 

 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

My apologies, I didn't realize I was claiming you said anything.  My comment was meant to suggest how one could view Joseph's stories as something other than literal tangible events and still find room to appreciate the gospel messages.  

Appreciate messages, sure. An atheist could do so. 
 

Believe foundational truth claims?  That is where I see the problem of holding both position...believe truth claims, don’t believe the stories the truth claims are based on...I don’t see and persuasive power in such a relationship beyond I want to believe the truth claims. 
 

Just to be clear, I have no problem with whatever relationship one has with the church as a member as long as it is fulfilling for the member and supportive of other members, including the Church leaders...and not just supportive in the way one thinks is good (a nonbeliever in the truth claims might think it is supportive to help believers lose their faith sometimes), but supportive as the other member desires to be supportive. 

Edited June 10, 2020 by Calm

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Let’s see if the first vision and revelations about who God is were Joseph’s imagination...I have lost any foundation to believe that God is my literal father and that I can progress to become like him. God becomes a being who I will never comprehend.
 

 Kind of shifts the whole expectation of what my eternal life is and therefore how I view the priorities in my life as well as altering what I feel is a deep connection with God who I see as understanding me so well because he has lived a similar life rather than just having supernatural awareness or knowledge. 

Quote

Joseph exaggerating his story into getting actual revelation from God and angels...you don’t see a problem with that?

Meh. I don't really think Joseph's vision tells you any of that anyway. Does it? Really think this through. Let's say you obtained the following information: that The First Vision was real, in the sense that it was a real event in Joseph's life, and that he experienced it as something dramatic and important and real to him BUT that the nature of the experience was such that Joseph was unable to separate what was true and real in an absolute way and what was a participatory or contributory element created by Joseph or so heavily interpreted by Joseph that it left nothing to be taken as absolute knowledge about God. What that really change your life? It might make you less certain about some of the things you have a bit more certainty about, but I propose it would cause you to change very little to nothing about how you view the world and how you would continue to go about living your religion. What do you think?

 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

don't really think Joseph's vision tells you any of that anyway. 

I didn’t realize you were specifying only the vision, assumed you were talking about a standard of behaviour for all similar events...Joseph exaggerated.  If he exaggerated one revelation, wouldn’t you assume exaggerations of others?  Exaggeration of truth claims?

So I considered what it would mean to me if I learned that Joseph was willing to exaggerated his received revelations, maybe didn’t actually receive revelations.  We then have the Bible to depend on if we so choose with its own set of expectations and it becomes reasonable to assume that other faiths are as correct as our own. 

Quote

. So, Joseph might have exaggerated something. Can we get past that? Further, I think there are elements of Joseph's story that seem clearly _____. Fill in the blank: deluded, fraudulent, off, sketchy, dark-glass-looking, whatever. I'd like to find a little bit more faithful language to express this concept, but it's difficult. But the point is that super clean version of Joseph is already compromised, so I don't think it's wise to try to hold BOM creation to that standard.

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by Calm

[stemelbow]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

Appreciate messages, sure. An atheist could do so. 
 

Believe foundational truth claims?  That is where I see the problem of holding both position...believe truth claims, don’t believe the stories the truth claims are based on...I don’t see and persuasive power in such a relationship beyond I want to believe the truth claims. 

I must be confusing things then.  I thought "truth claims" referred to things like Joseph's Frist vision, or the BOM was translated from plates.  If one sees JOseph's First vision as a dream, or vision, that happened internally, then that one isn't accepting the truth claim to begin with (God and Jesus didn't really come to Joseph, they merely appeared in his dream or vision).  If one thinks the BoM, though inspired, came to Joseph's mind's eye and isn't a true representation of ancient events and stories, rather than is a translation of ancient writing, then one doesn't accept the truth claim to begin with.  
What do you mean by truth claims?  

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

Just to be clear, I have no problem with whatever relationship one has with the church as a member as long as it is fulfilling for the member and supportive of other members, including the Church leaders...and not just supportive in the way one thinks is good (a nonbeliever in the truth claims might think it is supportive to help believers lose their faith sometimes), but supportive as the other member desires to be supportive. 

 

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

The "inspired fiction" approach to The Book of Mormon requires an affirmative rejection of The Book of Mormon as what it claims to be, and what Joseph Smith and the Witnesses said it is. To accept it on those grounds would be like saying "Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and my Lord and Savior, even though I reject the idea that he ever actually existed." A fictional Christ does not work, and neither does a fictional Book of Mormon.

My dear buddy smac, I think this is a vast over-simplification of the options bordering on making it into a false dichotomy.

One can perfectly rationally believe in the historicity of the BOM without thinking that its historicity is necessary for its spiritual teachings to be part of a perfectly justified paradigm for belief.

Your view seems very black and white, and does not consider all the shades of grey that others see.  

First of all "fiction" is in a sense a deliberate falsity- a story made up and clearly not intended to ever be a representation of facts.  In some of the best fiction, entire worlds are imagined, as in much of world literature,-- for popular contemporary examples one can go to Star Wars, Harry Potter,  the various worlds Tolkien invented etc.

No one disputes the value of these works because they "never really happened".

And then we have most of the greatest lessons that Jesus taught - in parables.

  We have the Good Samaritan, the Ten Virgins, the Prodigal Son and on and on.  No one faults the value of these teaching because they ARE INDEED "inspired fiction" AND part of the new testament. 

And then we have what ostensibly happened which is "historical"-  though not provable of course- the curing of the Centurion's servant- the raising of Lazarus,  the woman touching Jesus' cloak, the sermon on the mount etc. which only appear in the book for their spiritual value.  There are no notations about taking a day off to clean up and rest after the sermon on the mount, or where the bathrooms were for that vast crowd.  Those matters are not relevant to the book, only matters of spiritual value are included.

When one understands how the human mind works, - one can understand how the "catalyst theory" for the Book of Abraham could just as easily apply to the Book of Mormon- that there WERE some kind of plates which Joseph used as a "crutch" to receive revelation. Where were the plates during the translation?  Think about it!!   The entire BOM was received in how many days?  60 or something like that??  While Joseph looked at a stone in a hat?  How important then were the plates?  And Joseph was able to drop off for lunch and then come back picking up at the last word where the revelation stopped and "turn it back on" again?  Clearly on the words of witnesses --THAT is the miraculous history, not the geographic coordinates for Zarahemla.

Where was the archaeology in the hat?  Where was the history?  Where was the scientific proof of the "reality" of the named people and history of the places?   Was all the evidence in the hat- and you want to call it "historical"?   Can you see how hard that is to believe when the story is new to you?

And yet is it IMPOSSIBLE that God could tell Joseph "real history" even if we don't have evidence??   

I emphatically say NO to that one!!

That is the real problem here- mixing the metaphors of history with the metaphors of spirituality

Just as we affirm the Book of Abraham- and I have no problem with that- we cannot PROVE the historicity of the BOM as a spiritual book

IF it is a spiritual book, it can be confirmed only by the spirit.  If you want history, you need HISTORICAL EVIDENCE -  if you want spiritual truth, the confirmation is by the spirit.

You can have BOTH without lies etc.

The worst logical mistake one can make is "mixing metaphors" - or paradigms- or language games- choose your language.  Using spiritual evidence for geography is folly- but being guided by the Lord to a destination is not.

You do not need to know about atomic particles and string theory to build a house, yet both are about the nature of how the world works.

And neither physics nor building skills will tell you WHERE God wants you to live- to build the house, or where He needs you.  THAT is mixing metaphors!

I contend that we do not NEED history to verify the historicity of the BOM since in the final analysis the TRUTH of the book lies in spiritual confirmation.

And all this insistence on historicity does is give the critics ammunition for their illogical arguments- that history is required for spiritual truth.  And that is the problem with needing historicity.  It places the burden of proof for religion on history instead of placing the burden of truth on spirituality.  Where else would you look for evidence of religion than in spiritual truth?

Everyone admits that the BOM in the final analysis can be confirmed ONLY by the spirit- so why even worry about its history?

Might have happened, might have not.  Joseph could have had it all revealed to him and it would still be spiritually TRUE.  The book itself could still fill the measure of its creation, and we could have JOY therein, and purpose for our lives, the most correct book on earth.

If it can only be confirmed by the spirit, history makes no difference in the teachings therein which are SPIRITUAL!!

Why is that so hard to see?

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, churchistrue said:

OK. And? 

I don't see this is being such a big hurdle. So, Joseph might have exaggerated something. Can we get past that? Further, I think there are elements of Joseph's story that seem clearly _____. Fill in the blank: deluded, fraudulent, off, sketchy, dark-glass-looking, whatever. I'd like to find a little bit more faithful language to express this concept, but it's difficult. But the point is that super clean version of Joseph is already compromised, so I don't think it's wise to try to hold BOM creation to that standard.

 

How about just plain "revelation"?

I think quite frankly the Catholics beat us out on that one- they have the stigmata, visions of Mary at the drop of a hat etc.

It is important to understand religious experience can come in anyway a person feels it, so I feel no necessity to define what cannot in principle be defined anyway!

Some people need "crutches" for revelations.  Native Americans use/used chemicals etc for their spiritual insights- it all boils down to brain states in the long run- but what does not?

What of dreams?  How about lucid dreams?

It's really about cognitive science in the long run and what is "real" and what is not.

I have posted this before but I think it is relevant to post it yet again.

We have to remember that all of this started with a "vision" - but then we want to suddenly make it about something else.

I really don't know why we do that, when visions are fully justifiable as spiritual experiences just as "valid" as other experiences are.  William James showed that in his "Varieties" and even in "Radical Empiricism"

Let's face it.  If we cannot justify visions as a rational part of the Church of Jesus Christ, we are in big trouble.  That is the essential bottom line here for all of it.

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Tacenda, while that particular link does not work, the second link for that section that is at the bottom of the essay works just fine. None of the links in the body of the section work, while the same links work just fine at the bottom of the essay. 

 

The conspiracy theorist might say it was a roadblock. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

My dear buddy smac, I think this is a vast over-simplification of the options bordering on making it into a false dichotomy.

One can perfectly rationally believe in the historicity of the BOM without thinking that its historicity is necessary for its spiritual teachings to be part of a perfectly justified paradigm for belief.

In the long run, I don't think it can.  As Elder Oaks put it:

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.)

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.

Can a person have faith in Christ while simultaneously rejecting Christ as an actual, historical figure? I don't think so. 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.

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Your view seems very black and white, and does not consider all the shades of grey that others see.  

No, I don't think so.  At the end of it all, there are some yes-or-no propositions that must be addressed.  Joseph Smith either experienced genuine theophanies, or he did not.  He either located actual, physical, ancient plates buried in a hill in upstate New York, or he did not.  He either took possession of these plates, or he did not.  These plates either contained the writings of actual, real people (Lehi, Nephi, Brother of Jared, etc.), or they did not.

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

First of all "fiction" is in a sense a deliberate falsity- a story made up and clearly not intended to ever be a representation of facts.  In some of the best fiction, entire worlds are imagined, as in much of world literature,-- for popular contemporary examples one can go to Star Wars, Harry Potter,  the various worlds Tolkien invented etc.

No one disputes the value of these works because they "never really happened".

Yes, I agree with these.

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And then we have most of the greatest lessons that Jesus taught - in parables.

  We have the Good Samaritan, the Ten Virgins, the Prodigal Son and on and on.  No one faults the value of these teaching because they ARE INDEED "inspired fiction" AND part of the new testament. 

I've addressed this comparison before.  See here:

Quote

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

A popular refrain from the "Inspired Fiction" folks is that The Book of Mormon has value even if it is entirely fictional, just like the parables of Jesus need not be literally historical in order to have value.  However, I disagree with this comparison.   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.

In his article "Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon" (published in the above volume), Kent P. Jackson asks, "what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?"  He goes on (emphasis added):

Quote

Can the Book of Mormon indeed be 'true,' in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events?" (Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, pp. 137-138.)

 

And here:

Quote

Quote

God has inspired scripture in the past that isn't historical so I don't see why it's a stretch to think that could be the case with the BoM as well.

I can see the point about some parts of scripture not needing to be literally true in order to be valuable and inspired.  The Savior's parables are good examples.  But here's the thing: The Savior did not say that the things in His parables really happened.  He presented them as parables.  

In contrast, The Book of Mormon declares itself to be historical.  Your position is to reject that and call it a lie.

The story provided by Joseph Smith is that he was visited by angels, that an angel led him to discover an ancient artifact, that the angel told him the artifact was a historical record of actual people who had lived in the Americas, that Joseph Smith took possession of these plates, that these plates had mass and volume, that these plates had the "appearance of gold" and had engravings on them, that Joseph Smith "translated" these engravings by "the gift and power of God," that Three Witnesses testified that an angel descended from heaven and showed them these plates, that another Eight Witnesses hefted and examined the plates at a separate time and in mundane circumstances, and so on.

Your proposal is that all of these things are factually false.  Lies or delusions.  Conspiracies and fabrications.  And most astounding of all, that God is the author of these lies and deceits and fabrications.

So yes, your proposal is "a stretch."  To put it mildly.

And here:

Quote

Quote

Parables aren't necessarily true historic events but they still teach true principles, right?

Yes, I concede that the historicity of a particular parable spoken by Christ is immaterial to its spiritual value. However, the historicity of the existence of Christ is a markedly different issue. If Christ never existed, then belief in Him has no salvific power. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" has no meaning or relevance. In fact, it is a lie and a fraud which must be affirmatively rejected if there is historicity underlying it. I think the same must be said for The Book of Mormon. 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. Rejected the rest of it would seem to be just a matter of time.

Can you perhaps agree that historicity is an essential component of some, but not all, facets of Mormonism?

I'd be interested in you responding to these points.

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And then we have what ostensibly happened which is "historical"-  though not provable of course- the curing of the Centurion's servant- the raising of Lazarus,  the woman touching Jesus' cloak, the sermon on the mount etc. which only appear in the book for their spiritual value.  There are no notations about taking a day off to clean up and rest after the sermon on the mount, or where the bathrooms were for that vast crowd.  Those matters are not relevant to the book, only matters of spiritual value are included.

Splitting hairs over minutiae is not the point of the historicity debate.  At all.

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

When one understands how the human mind works, - one can understand how the "catalyst theory" for the Book of Abraham could just as easily apply to the Book of Mormon- that there WERE some kind of plates which Joseph used as a "crutch" to receive revelation.

What do you mean by "some kind of plates?"  Were there plates, or not?  Were they authentically ancient, or shams fabricated by Joseph or his contemporaries?

And how do you account for the Angel Moroni?  Rejecting historicity necessarily requires rejecting Moroni, right?  

Also, how do you account for the Testimony of the Three Witnesses?  They declared that "an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before {their} eyes, that {they} beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon," that they saw "the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken," and that they saw "the engravings which are upon the plates" which were "shown unto {them} by the power of God, and not of man."  What do you make of these statements?  Were they lying?  Deceived?  Insane?  Drugged?

The Three Witnesses also said that the voice of God "declared unto" them that "they have been translated by the gift and power of God."  Same questions as above.  Lying?  Deceived?  Insane?  Drugged?

Also, how do you account for the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses?  They declared "{t}hat Joseph Smith ... has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship."  Same questions as above.

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Where were the plates during the translation?  Think about it!!

I've thought about that.  A lot.

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The entire BOM was received in how many days?  60 or something like that??  While Joseph looked at a stone in a hat?  How important then were the plates? 

Extremely important, I think.

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And Joseph was able to drop off for lunch and then come back picking up at the last word where the revelation stopped and "turn it back on" again?  Clearly on the words of witnesses --THAT is the miraculous history, not the geographic coordinates for Zarahemla.

I've said nothing about "the geographic coordinates for Zarahemla."  Again, I do not think you are properly characterizing the issues pertaining to historicity.

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Where was the archaeology in the hat?  Where was the history?  Where was the scientific proof of the "reality" of the named people and history of the places?   Was all the evidence in the hat- and you want to call it "historical"?   Can you see how hard that is to believe when the story is new to you?

I'm not sure I understand your point here.

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And yet is it IMPOSSIBLE that God could tell Joseph "real history" even if we don't have evidence??   

I emphatically say NO to that one!!

I really don't understand what you are saying here.

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That is the real problem here- mixing the metaphors of history with the metaphors of spirituality

No.  That is not the problem at all.

We are speaking of historicity.

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Just as we affirm the Book of Abraham- and I have no problem with that- we cannot PROVE the historicity of the BOM as a spiritual book

I agree that we cannot prove historicity.  I don't think I've ever suggested otherwise.

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

IF it is a spiritual book, it can be confirmed only by the spirit.  If you want history, you need HISTORICAL EVIDENCE -  if you want spiritual truth, the confirmation is by the spirit.

I agree.  But again, you are not addressing the issue, which is historicity.

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You can have BOTH without lies etc.

I look forward to you responding to my inquiries above.  We can then come back and have a further discussion of whether the "Inspired Fiction" approach to The Book of Mormon can be presented "without lies."  I don't think it can.

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The worst logical mistake one can make is "mixing metaphors" - or paradigms- or language games- choose your language.  Using spiritual evidence for geography is folly- but being guided by the Lord to a destination is not.

You do not need to know about atomic particles and string theory to build a house, yet both are about the nature of how the world works.

And neither physics nor building skills will tell you WHERE God wants you to live- to build the house, or where He needs you.  THAT is mixing metaphors!

I am not speaking of geography.  Or atomic particles.  Or physics.

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I contend that we do not NEED history to verify the historicity of the BOM since in the final analysis the TRUTH of the book lies in spiritual confirmation.

I have not claimed that we "need history to verify the historicity of the BOM."

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And all this insistence on historicity does is give the critics ammunition for their illogical arguments- that history is required for spiritual truth. 

I invite you to consider the difference between "history" and "historicity."

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And that is the problem with needing historicity.  It places the burden of proof for religion on history instead of placing the burden of truth on spirituality.  Where else would you look for evidence of religion than in spiritual truth?

I think you are substantially misconstruing the issues here.  I invite you to read "Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures," edited by Paul Hoskisson, which is available for free online.  

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Everyone admits that the BOM in the final analysis can be confirmed ONLY by the spirit- so why even worry about its history?

For the same reasons we believe in the historicity of Jesus Christ.

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Might have happened, might have not. 

"Might have not" has huge ramifications.

"Jesus Christ might have been the Son of God, might have not."  Are you indifferent as to which of these options is correct?

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Joseph could have had it all revealed to him and it would still be spiritually TRUE. 

Again, I look forward to you addressing the issues above (the existence of the plates, the Angel Moroni, the Three Witnesses, the Eight Witnesses).

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The book itself could still fill the measure of its creation, and we could have JOY therein, and purpose for our lives, the most correct book on earth.

If it can only be confirmed by the spirit, history makes no difference in the teachings therein which are SPIRITUAL!!

Why is that so hard to see?

I've addressed this before.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

All of the arguments against inspired fiction or any kind of non-literalist interpretation because they undermine truth claims are simply not sound.

Yessir!

Yet again that does not mean that a "literal" understanding is NOT sound either- just that the arguments against non-literalist interpretations are not sound.

Ultimately both interpretations tell the same story and end up serving the same purpose- allowing us to forgive ourselves from the guilt of our sins.

Both metaphors work but in different ways for different people!   

Especially when they always end with "but of course one must obtain a spiritual testimony of the Book of Mormon" thereby throwing out their lengthy historical arguments instantly.  Poof!

It's absurd.

"Oh but the history helps!"  Not if you think it through!

"But it requires a literal Christ!? "   

Why?  Is GOD incapable of forgiving everyone himself?  How many mercy points does it take to equal a justice point?   Where does this great trade take place?  Is "mercy" a tangible thing floating around somewhere that must balance a tangible thing called "justice"?  What could those words possibly mean? 

How much "green" does it take to overcome "E flat"?  All of those are human concepts- justice and mercy are spiritual traits and E flat and green are human perceptions, one in color, the other in music/sound.  Balancing such human concepts against other human concepts from different contexts doesn't work.  Balancing what does not have weight is a senseless analogy.

Again I believe fully in a historical Jesus and that his death was essential for the atonement to TEACH US how to forgive others and know that there was One who underwent it all and overcame it all.

Because of Him we can do it too.   It's not unlike others who made huge sacrifices in their lives and their stories teach us about the need to be able to make ultimate sacrifices.  Jesus was a miraculous HEALER who also heals us of our cares and woes if we believe in Him.  He was also the Son of God, and through Him God organized it all by the Word

It was organized by God's Human Intelligence through The Word, the giver of human language- "insofar as it is translated correctly"

And things of the spirit cannot be "translated correctly" into human language- but it's the best we have.

But the message has to fit with the culture or it won't communicate.  Again- mixing metaphors.  We do not need to sacrifice lambs anymore.  It's the opposite of "presentism"- it projects ancient language into a contemporary context, where presentism projects contemporary ideas into ancient contexts.

But the point of all this is to show that one context (history) does not mix to prove or deny another context (spiritual truth)

It's like mixing the rules of poker with the rules of basketball.  But at least both of those are games with rules.  

 

 

 

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

A symbolic Christ is inspiring in my life.

So are Samwise Gamgee, Atticus Finch, and Captain America.

But the whole point of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is real.  That He is the actual Son of God, our Savior and Redeemer, and atoned for our sins.

Jesus Christ as a symbol, and nothing more, is about as meaningful to my salvation as would be a photograph of a glass of water to a man dying of thirst in the desert.  

Quote

I’ll never be a 100%-in Mormon, but I do derive meaning and spiritual belonging from my membership and participation.

I'm glad to hear that.  And I welcome you in full fellowship.  I hope you continue to keep your covenants and move forward in faith.

Quote

All of the arguments against inspired fiction or any kind of non-literalist interpretation because they undermine truth claims are simply not sound.

With respect, I am unpersuaded by this assertion.

I invite you to read "Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures," edited by Paul Hoskisson, which is available for free online.  

Quote

I and others like me are living proof that non-literalist interpretations can work fine within Mormonism. Alright? I’ll go back and hide under my rock now.

I'm glad to hear that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 10, 2020 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

The conspiracy theorist might say it was a roadblock. 

And they might say there was no moon landing, the earth is flat, and so much more. 

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In the long run, I don't think it can.  As Elder Oaks put it:

 

That is correct, he did say that.  So that is an argument from authority.  Ok, I would say the same to him, I think he was wrong on that one. I do not believe that prophets and apostles are infallible.

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.

Maybe yes, maybe no, but I never said that either way.

I suppose it depends on what kind of "faith" you are talking about.  "Hope for things unseen".  I suppose one could hope for evidence that was seen and not felt, but as for me I will stick with the evidence I know is true- spiritual witness.  

So I guess the answer is "Yes- one can have spiritual faith in the BOM while rejecting it's history" but again that is not my position.  I also have faith that one day ("Hope for things unseen") that more evidence will be found.

You are not seeing the nuances here I think.

Quote

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.

I disagree, using all the restraint I can muster in staying charitable.  No real power???

The power is manifested by having 15 million people who believe - BELIEVE- it is true.  Obviously it has "power"- whatever kind you are speaking and left undefined, I have no clue, but power it definitely has.

And a lot of people find help in those "quirky self-help books".   I wonder how many of those have been sold over the years.  Spiritual value?  Nil but people buy them and find them helpful or they would not sell.  And what do you mean by "salvation of men"?  Salvation from what?  Keep the contexts separate here please.  Those books might save people from what they were designed to save them from- laziness, losing weight, feeling better about themselves etc.  THAT is their purpose.  You have already conceded they are helpful.  It is true that none of them claim to be the Word of God.

And as you know "salvation" is a tough word for we members of the Church of Jesus Christ since for some it means immortality and resurrection and for others it means exaltation.  The devil is in the details and it seems you are confusing those here.

Quote

Can a person have faith in Christ while simultaneously rejecting Christ as an actual, historical figure? I don't think so.

Agree, but of course I never said that.

Quote

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.

Agree, but of course I never said that.

Quote

No, I don't think so.  At the end of it all, there are some yes-or-no propositions that must be addressed.  Joseph Smith either experienced genuine theophanies, or he did not.  He either located actual, physical, ancient plates buried in a hill in upstate New York, or he did not.  He either took possession of these plates, or he did not.  These plates either contained the writings of actual, real people (Lehi, Nephi, Brother of Jared, etc.), or they did not.

Oh my I wish the world and how we organize it through language was so simple as to be black and white. 

Do you really think we are talking about "the world" here in your black and white verbal logic, or just our perceptions of the world?

First of all I would question that whole paradigm, because there can be propositions which can be true AND false at the same time.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism

I have no idea how anyone would determine whether or not Joseph had a "genuine" theophany other than through personal testimony, which I have and know that he did.  But I cannot prove that to you.   So I fail to see how that is relevant.  As with the BOM I think my testimonies justify both my belief and indeed certainty that Joseph had a theophany AND that the BOM is true.

I agree with your little list here as well, but that has nothing to do with what I wrote earlier.  Perhaps you should read it again.  I accept all that by faith (substance of things hoped for but not seen) and my personal testimonies.  BUT if some historical evidence came forth tomorrow to "prove" (and I must concede I cannot even imagine what such evidence could possible be) I still could accept the BOM as spiritually true as I do accept the Bible as true spiritually insofar as it is transmitted to us "correctly".

I still don't see why you do not see that.  I guess we just see the world quite differently.

Quote

 

I've addressed this comparison before.  See here:

And here:

And here:

I'd be interested in you responding to these points.

 

I guess I will try to look them up but I suspect as this post is taking up my allocated time for this board for a few days, it may be a few days before I get to them.  But feel free to remind me and let's take them one point at a time, ok?

This is already ridiculously long.

Quote

What do you mean by "some kind of plates?"  Were there plates, or not?  Were they authentically ancient, or shams fabricated by Joseph or his contemporaries?

Whatever you like, not important to me.  If you only believe in one possibility, that they were as you described them above fine.  We can agree then that there were "some kind of plates".  You pick- not relevant to me.  I think Taves is out there but I could accept her explanation without problems, quite frankly.

I really DO have a testimony that God told me that he wants me HERE.  That's all that matters to me.   He gives me options as a responsible adult for the rest, and I know he's ok with that, because he has "told me".

And I know he teaches us as if we were children, but it's time to put off childish ways.  I heard that somewhere. 

Quote

And how do you account for the Angel Moroni?  Rejecting historicity necessarily requires rejecting Moroni, right?  

Of course not!  Joseph SAYS he saw an angel the same way he saw God himself.  Through testimony and personal experience I know such things are possible and I believe him.  But even if he never said that, I still believe it was possible.

Quote

Also, how do you account for the Testimony of the Three Witnesses?  They declared that "an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before {their} eyes, that {they} beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon," that they saw "the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken," and that they saw "the engravings which are upon the plates" which were "shown unto {them} by the power of God, and not of man."  What do you make of these statements?  Were they lying?  Deceived?  Insane?  Drugged?

No I believe what they said.  Why not?  Why do you think that is inconsistent with my position?

Quote

The Three Witnesses also said that the voice of God "declared unto" them that "they have been translated by the gift and power of God."  Same questions as above.  Lying?  Deceived?  Insane?  Drugged?

No, I have my own witness, why do I need theirs?  It's irrelevant to me.  Same thing as if you told me you had a testimony.  It's not impossible.

Quote

I've said nothing about "the geographic coordinates for Zarahemla."  Again, I do not think you are properly characterizing the issues pertaining to historicity.

That was an analogy for the view that 100% literal information was essential for every historic detail .

How far off "exact" could the history be before you decide it is "fraudulent"?   I don't have that problem

Quote

I look forward to you responding to my inquiries above.  We can then come back and have a further discussion of whether the "Inspired Fiction" approach to The Book of Mormon can be presented "without lies."  I don't think it can.

It's clear you don't understand where I am coming from.  You are throwing me in with positions you see as strawmen without listening to what my position is

I agree just from the definition of "fiction" that it involves "lies" if you want to make it that simplistic.  By definition "fiction" means something completely made up.

Again you do not understand my position. My position is that the BOM could be literally true or not literally true to have value as a spiritual book and be "true".

Quote

I am not speaking of geography.  Or atomic particles.  Or physics.

Sigh.

yes I know.  I am about to blow a blood vessel.  It was an analogy, kind sir. 

I suspect you know what those are.  But since they are not literally true I wonder if perhaps you do not.

Quote

 

I have not claimed that we "need history to verify the historicity of the BOM."

I invite you to consider the difference between "history" and "historicity."

 

Please show me where I got that wrong.

Quote

I think you are substantially misconstruing the issues here.  I invite you to read "Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures," edited by Paul Hoskisson, which is available for free online.  

It rings a bell and I will look it up.

Quote

"Might have not" has huge ramifications.

What doesn't?

Quote

"Jesus Christ might have been the Son of God, might have not."  Are you indifferent as to which of these options is correct?

I would like to see the exact context you pulled that from.

This is just sport for you, isn't it?  Do you listen to anything anybody actually says?

I was speaking of the value of spiritual stories as proverbs.  Of course I have a testimony that Jesus Christ IS the Son of God.

Quote

 

Again, I look forward to you addressing the issues above (the existence of the plates, the Angel Moroni, the Three Witnesses, the Eight Witnesses).

I've addressed this before.

 

Yeah if I get time.

If you have one relevant comment I would love to discuss it with you.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That is correct, he did say that.  So that is an argument from authority. 

No, it's a substantive argument.

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok, I would say the same to him, I think he was wrong on that one. I do not believe that prophets and apostles are infallible.

Nor do I.  But you aren't offering reasoning or evidence.  Just assertion.

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Quote

No, I don't think so.  At the end of it all, there are some yes-or-no propositions that must be addressed.  Joseph Smith either experienced genuine theophanies, or he did not.  He either located actual, physical, ancient plates buried in a hill in upstate New York, or he did not.  He either took possession of these plates, or he did not.  These plates either contained the writings of actual, real people (Lehi, Nephi, Brother of Jared, etc.), or they did not.

Oh my I wish the world and how we organize it through language was so simple as to be black and white. 

Well, in some ways, we can.

Donald Trump is either the current president of the United States, or he is not.

California is either located west of Utah, or it is not.

The earth is either spherical in shape (or, to be more technical, oblate spheroid), or it is not.

And so on.

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have no idea how anyone would determine whether or not Joseph had a "genuine" theophany other than through personal testimony, which I have and know that he did.  But I cannot prove that to you.   

Same here.  But again, I'm not talking about "proving" these propositions.

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So I fail to see how that is relevant. 

Let's consider two options:

Option A: Jesus Christ was just a rabbi with some interesting ideas.  He taught some good moral precepts, but that's all.  He was not unique.  He was not the Son of God.  He did not live a sinless life.  He did not atone for our sins.  He was not resurrected.  He neither had, nor now has, any power to save us from the consequences of sin and death.

Option B: Jesus as the Son of God, born of Mary, who lived a sinless life, atoned for our sins, died, was resurrected, ascended to the right hand God, and is our Savior and Redeemer.

If you cannot see the significant difference between these options, then I think we should just move on.  We're too far apart.

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

As with the BOM I think my testimonies justify both my belief and indeed certainty that Joseph had a theophany AND that the BOM is true.

Well, so do I.  But that is not particularly responsive to the issue of historicity.

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree with your little list here as well, but that has nothing to do with what I wrote earlier.  Perhaps you should read it again.  I accept all that by faith (substance of things hoped for but not seen) and my personal testimonies.  BUT if some historical evidence came forth tomorrow to "prove" (and I must concede I cannot even imagine what such evidence could possible be) I still could accept the BOM as spiritually true as I do accept the Bible as true spiritually insofar as it is transmitted to us "correctly".

Again, you are not addressing the issue of historicity.

The historicity of Jesus Christ is a vital consideration.  I submit that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is likewise a vital consideration.

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I still don't see why you do not see that.  I guess we just see the world quite differently.

Perhaps so.

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Quote

What do you mean by "some kind of plates?"  Were there plates, or not?  Were they authentically ancient, or shams fabricated by Joseph or his contemporaries?

Whatever you like, not important to me. 

Are you likewise indifferent to whether Jesus was the Son of God, or not?

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If you only believe in one possibility, that they were as you described them above fine. 

I don't believe there is only one possibility.  I think there are a number of possibilities, but reason and evidence compel me to choose one.  

C.S. Lewis famously formulated a "trilemma" relating to Jesus Christ:

Quote

Lewis's trilemma is an apologetic argument traditionally used to argue for the divinity of Jesus by arguing that the only alternatives were that he was evil or deluded. (Strictly speaking, Lewis is not trying to prove the divinity of Christ but is merely arguing that one cannot simultaneously affirm that Jesus was a great moral teacher and not divine.) One version was popularised by University of Oxford literary scholar and writer C. S. Lewis in a BBC radio talk and in his writings. It is sometimes described as the "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord", or "Mad, Bad, or God" argument. It takes the form of a trilemma — a choice among three options, each of which is in some way difficult to accept.

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").

If you can be indifferent to Jesus being a "lunatic" or "liar," then we really do "see the world quite differently."

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We can agree then that there were "some kind of plates".  You pick- not relevant to me.  I think Taves is out there but I could accept her explanation without problems, quite frankly.

I can't.  The logical and practical ramifications of Jesus being a "lunatic" or "liar" (as opposed to "Lord") are huge.

Similarly, the ramifications of the plates being a product of delusion or fraud (as opposed to being authentically ancient) are, for me, huge.

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I really DO have a testimony that God told me that he wants me HERE.  That's all that matters to me.   He gives me options as a responsible adult for the rest, and I know he's ok with that, because he has "told me".

I am glad to hear that.  And I haven't questioned your testimony (I don't know you).

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Quote

And how do you account for the Angel Moroni?  Rejecting historicity necessarily requires rejecting Moroni, right?  

Of course not!  Joseph SAYS he saw an angel the same way he saw God himself. 

But that "angel" was Moroni.  The last of a long line of prophets, going back to Lehi.  The "inspired fiction" concept means the BoM account is fictional.  No Lehi, ergo, no Moroni.  Rejecting historicity necessarily requries rejecting that Moroni ever lived, such that he could not have been resurrected and appears to Joseph Smith as an angel.

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Through testimony and personal experience I know such things are possible and I believe him.  But even if he never said that, I still believe it was possible.

How is it possible for Moroni to have lived, died, resurrected, and appeared to Joseph Smith if he (Moroni) never existed in the first place?

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Quote

Also, how do you account for the Testimony of the Three Witnesses?  They declared that "an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before {their} eyes, that {they} beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon," that they saw "the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken," and that they saw "the engravings which are upon the plates" which were "shown unto {them} by the power of God, and not of man."  What do you make of these statements?  Were they lying?  Deceived?  Insane?  Drugged?

No I believe what they said.  Why not?  Why do you think that is inconsistent with my position?

As pertaining to the feasibility of the "Inspired Fiction" theory, how do you square it (the theory) with the statement of the Three Witnesses?

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Quote

The Three Witnesses also said that the voice of God "declared unto" them that "they have been translated by the gift and power of God."  Same questions as above.  Lying?  Deceived?  Insane?  Drugged?

No, I have my own witness, why do I need theirs?  It's irrelevant to me.  Same thing as if you told me you had a testimony.  It's not impossible.

Again, how do you reconcile the "Inspired Fiction" theory with the above excerpt of the statement of the Three Witnesses?

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Quote

I've said nothing about "the geographic coordinates for Zarahemla."  Again, I do not think you are properly characterizing the issues pertaining to historicity.

That was an analogy for the view that 100% literal information was essential for every historic detail .

Again, you are not addressing the issue.  Nobody is talking about a "view that 100% literal information was essential for every historic detail."  I'm certainly not.  I categorically reject such a concept.

I am, instead, speaking of historicity.

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

How far off "exact" could the history be before you decide it is "fraudulent"?   I don't have that problem.

But the proponents of the "Inspired Fiction" theory do.

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Quote

I look forward to you responding to my inquiries above.  We can then come back and have a further discussion of whether the "Inspired Fiction" approach to The Book of Mormon can be presented "without lies."  I don't think it can.

It's clear you don't understand where I am coming from.  You are throwing me in with positions you see as strawmen without listening to what my position is

I agree just from the definition of "fiction" that it involves "lies" if you want to make it that simplistic.  By definition "fiction" means something completely made up.

Again you do not understand my position. My position is that the BOM could be literally true or not literally true to have value as a spiritual book and be "true".

"Value as a spiritual book?"  Okay.  But then, the same can be said of How to Win Friends and Influence People, or Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.

The Book of Mormon has tremendous value, both for its moral instruction and its standing as a second witness of Jesus Christ, and as the keystone of the Restored Gospel.  I cannot ignore the need for its historicity any more than I could ignore the need for the historicity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

As I have said before:

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.

Can a person have faith in Christ while simultaneously rejecting Christ as an actual, historical figure? I don't think so. 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.
...
The "inspired fiction" approach to The Book of Mormon requires a rejection of The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be. To accept it on those grounds would be like saying "Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and my Lord and Savior, even though I reject the idea that he ever actually existed." A fictional Christ does not work, and neither does a fictional Book of Mormon.

I hope this clarifies things.

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Quote

 

Quote

{The events and persons in The Book of Mormon} might have happened, might have not. 

"Jesus Christ might have been the Son of God, might have not."  Are you indifferent as to which of these options is correct?

 

I would like to see the exact context you pulled that from.

Right here.

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This is just sport for you, isn't it?  Do you listen to anything anybody actually says?

Yes.  Here I am, listening to what you have to say.

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I was speaking of the value of spiritual stories as proverbs.  Of course I have a testimony that Jesus Christ IS the Son of God.

First, I apologize for having given offense.  That was not my intention.

Second, I don't know you, so I don't know what your position is relative to the Restored Gospel in every particular.

Third, you seem indifferent to the ramifications of the "Inspired Fiction" theory.  I was drawing on a comparison that was formulated by Elder Oaks ("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.").

Fourth, if it makes a difference that Jesus Christ really lived, really was the Son of God, etc., then I think the corollary argument merits some attention: that it also matters that The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, what Joseph Smith claimed it to be, what the Witnesses claimed it to be, what the Church claims it to be.  Again, the ramifications of The Book of Mormon being the product of fraud or delusion are huge.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nor do I.  But you aren't offering reasoning or evidence.  Just assertion.

Oh great!  I would love to give you a full explanation of how that is not "just assertion" but I would have to summarize contemporary philosophy for that! Oh Pooh!  Guess I will have to write a book after all!

Now let me see.

If the atonement was not historical, then it did not happen and no one is saved.

Yet history requires evidence.

We have no historical evidence for the atonement, therefore it never happened.

That's some great apologetics.... for atheism.

So how am I wrong?

I am basically taking on the Dawkins et al side just to show you the problem with us having no reply for it, and how they use our own arguments against us.

If we have such great counter arguments, why are people leaving religion- not only the church- in droves!

Please show me how your argument reverses that very clear trend.

Incidentally I see this all as a "moot court" argument.  Just for folks who do not know me.  I consider myself about as true blue as they come, I just know what it takes to justify a proposition.

 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Everyone admits that the BOM in the final analysis can be confirmed ONLY by the spirit- so why even worry about its history?

Might have happened, might have not.  Joseph could have had it all revealed to him and it would still be spiritually TRUE.  The book itself could still fill the measure of its creation, and we could have JOY therein, and purpose for our lives, the most correct book on earth.

@smac97

This is what I said

You are twisting the inference to be about Christ, not the BOM

I am just about done with your distortions and misquotes

[smac97]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh great!  I would love to give you a full explanation of how that is not "just assertion" but I would have to summarize contemporary philosophy for that! Oh Pooh!  Guess I will have to write a book after all!

Now let me see.

If the atonement was not historical, then it did not happen and no one is saved.

Yet history requires evidence.

We have no historical evidence for the atonement, therefore it never happened.

That's some great apologetics.... for atheism.

So how am I wrong?

I am basically taking on the Dawkins et al side just to show you the problem with us having no reply for it, and how they use our own arguments against us.

If we have such great counter arguments, why are people leaving religion- not only the church- in droves!

Please show me how your argument reverses that very clear trend.

Incidentally I see this all as a "moot court" argument.  Just for folks who do not know me.  I consider myself about as true blue as they come, I just know what it takes to justify a proposition.

 

We seem to be talking past each other.  I'll withdraw, and leave you to have the final word.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

We seem to be talking past each other.  I'll withdraw, and leave you to have the final word.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well I would like to take it forward and keep it simple if someone else wants to pick up

If, for the atonement to work, it needs to be "historical", and in principle there cannot be historical evidence for it.

So obviously it is the BELIEF - the faith we express that it did happen that saves us, not the historical event

It's the belief that requires historicity to be true, so then we conclude it must be historical!

Belief requires historicity, on this view, therefore it MUST HAVE been an historical event.

That is the logic here.

I'm not buying that, it's a horrible argument. It puts the cart before the horse.

It's the same argument our critics use - no history = it's a lie, ergo Joseph is a fraud.

We take their lead then and bend over backwards looking for historical evidence.

But the critics don't accept testimony as evidence, and we do.

Accepting testimony as evidence requires philosophy to justify it, and they don't have it, and we could have it if we threw in a little philosophy!

We have it right there in Alma 42, and in Pragmatism.

If smac wants out, anyone out there that wants to take that up?

Edited June 11, 2020 by mfbukowski

[OGHoosier]

56 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I would like to take it forward and keep it simple if someone else wants to pick up

If, for the atonement to work, it needs to be "historical", and in principle there cannot be historical evidence for it.

So obviously it is the BELIEF - the faith we express that it did happen that saves us, not the historical event

It's the belief that requires historicity to be true, so then we conclude it must be historical!

Belief requires historicity, on this view, therefore it MUST HAVE been an historical event.

That is the logic here.

I'm not buying that, it's a horrible argument. It puts the cart before the horse.

It's the same argument our critics use - no history = it's a lie, ergo Joseph is a fraud.

We take their lead then and bend over backwards looking for historical evidence.

But the critics don't accept testimony as evidence, and we do.

Accepting testimony as evidence requires philosophy to justify it, and they don't have it, and we could have it if we threw in a little philosophy!

We have it right there in Alma 42, and in Pragmatism.

If smac wants out, anyone out there that wants to take that up?

Sure, I'll bite. This is interesting to me and I'm eager to be taught. I have dropped a rock down the shaft of Pragmatism and I haven't heard it hit bottom yet, so why not? How does Pragmatism (with Alma 42, which I just read and I kind of see the connection but not really) justify testimony as evidence? I do believe in testimony as evidence already, but I would like to see it from this angle. 

I'll confess to not understanding the functional theology of the Atonement very well, but the centrality of Christ's sacrifice seems to preclude a "fictional crucifixion and Resurrection" if it is to have any efficacy. You say that the belief in it saves us, not the historical event. I must partially disagree. As Paul puts it, "if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God...And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." (Excerpts from 1 Corinthians 15:14-19). Paul is pretty clear here that if Christ didn't really get resurrected, we are toast.

If I must question a premise from your argument, I would question that "history needs evidence" in this case. More like, "there needs to be the possibility of this being historical." So long as it is not effectively ruled out, there is room for faith. 

Edited June 11, 2020 by OGHoosier