- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
there are almost three categories of things: 1. Things provably true. In this case, they are part of the gospel.
2. Things provably false and proven false. In this case, they are not part of the gospel and should be rejected. There is no way to claim that the vast majority–if not all– native americans are NOT of Israelite ancestry, and thus the claim made by most LDS until recently that all native americans — south and north — are ‘lamamites’ is false.
3. Things not provable or falisifiable. and for this, we suspend judgment, or ‘have faith’. We don’t know if joseph smith saw the father and son in the flesh, or if it was a ‘spiritual eyes’ manifestation, or was it …. whatever. We don’t know, and NEVER will. We have faith. We don’t know if there is a pre-existence, an afterlife, or three degrees of glory, or the like. We don’t know and we will only know once we have passed the veil of death — but we can have faith.
Faith is hope for things…which are true. There is no sense in making faith out of category 2 — if something is not true, we need to reject it. Having ‘faith’ in the literal nature of the book of mormon is not ‘true faith’ because the there are no ‘lamanites’ today. Apologetics can say that proving a negative absolute is impossible — true — but JS and BY and others firmly taught that native americans, including ‘Zelph’ were lamanites, or white lamanites, or whatever from BoM history. This was not the case.
It is not faith to continue to make a false claim — it is delusion.
Now, Is the book of mormon spiritually true, does it contain a ‘fulness’ of the gospel? This is something in category three — neither provable nor falsifiable. I, personally, have faith that the book of mormon is inspired. I have felt that with near certainty. i have a ‘testimony’ of the inspired value of the book of mormon. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing to debate here — it is my unsubstantiated, faith-based testimony. It is not a ‘fact’ or ‘truth’ that can be debated. You may have a different opinion, and that’s fine — no sense in debating our opinions on this, because nothing is provable or falsifiable.
My issue with apologetics is that it doesn’t differentiate between truth, falsehood, and faith-based claims. It’s all truth because the church says it is, and then fits the facts, or discredits opposing points of view.
Quote:My issue with apologetics is that it doesn’t differentiate between truth, falsehood, and faith-based claims. It’s all truth because the church says it is, and then fits the facts, or discredits opposing points of view.
this – but I still think it paints the word “apologetics” a bit too narrowly. I define it as anything that is written specifically to address criticism. There are some abominable criticisms – and the same categories apply to them as to aologetics. There are some good apologetics that address things in categories 1 and 3, imo – and that are written in response to terrible, inaccurate criticsms.
One of my personal gripes with LDS apologetics is their use of apologetics. C.S. Lewis (the over used apologist) made his claims for Christianity – inspiring. His style of deliver and choice of examples touched lives in a hopeful way. Strife had purpose, pain was Godly, etc. LDS apologetics is this shredding experience. I grant that not all of them intend to do that, and some pieces are less so than others, but the body of work becomes this. For my money they not only do damage to the church, but to the office of apologetics.
One of the best things about CS Lewis is that he made intelligent apology, but he wrote it in such a way that less intelligent people could understand it. His arguments are often couched in language which is much simpler than most of the other people writing about the same kind of subject matter. I’ve a soft spot for him myself, even though I think he is occasionally very wrong. I’m late to the party on this but I have a couple of thoughts on the original question: 1) I think TBMs often use the line of defense – “Satan is making up that lie, it never happened.” So for example many TBMs when presented with evidence that Joseph Smith married other mens’ wives deny it completely. The assume it is just the buffetings of Satan to make this lie up and that the evidence is false. So when FAIR admits that the issues is factual this is where the harm may be done. It doesn’t matter how good the explanation is, it requires the TBM to stop sticking their head in the sands of denial.
2) My experience with reading FAIR stuff was that it was there were too many logical fallacies all over the place. The personal attacks going after the character of whoever made an argument or whoever the author was allowed me to dismiss them very quickly. Also they often would only handle a small part of the issue at a high level. They would take the easiest thing to argue and deal with that leaving the tricky stuff unanswered. Then there would be the waive of a hand – since this is OK, everything else must be OK too.
I think at the end of the day trying to defend dogma is a pretty difficult thing to do effectively for someone who is really looking for answers. For someone who just wants a little reassurance to put a problem on the shelf apologetics can be fairly effective.
As I have read both good apologetics and bad apologetics, I am starting to see from the comments here how the good apologetics may become seriously tainted by the bad. The truth needs no apology. It is only when the unknowable, the unproven, or the false is portrayed as “truth” do you need an apologia. Apologetics are spiritual narcotics. They are very bad for your mind.
I get bored reading articles from apologists. They take forever to make their point. It seems like to often they go on forever trying to be a spin doctor to prove their position. Truth to me is self evident. It takes few words to explain it. If you look at the DNA issue for example. An expert in the field can explain to you why Native Americans are not descended from Hebrews much easier than an apologist can try to explain away the DNA evidence. It is the same with other issues. It seems to take them so much more effort to prove their point than actual experts expend stating the obvious. How about when something well established in science contradicts their belief they learn to accept it and admit they were wrong or just say they do not have an answer. No amount of printed material can convince me to turn my back on hard evidence and accept wishful thinking. If they can come up with a concise will documented piece of evidence that contradicts experts I will listen. Otherwise it is to much effort to wade through their explanations. When you accept the fact that Joseph Smith most likely made it up as he went along most everything else falls into place and makes sense. You no longer need apologetics to spin it.
Cadence wrote:When you accept the fact that Joseph Smith most likely made it up as he went along most everything else falls into place and makes sense. You no longer need apologetics to spin it.
+1 oddly enough Occam’s razor usually works.
or when you accept that he was a visionary person – with all the good AND bad that accompany such a personality. Just sayin’, it doesn’t have to be one extreme – and I personally don’t think he was “making it up” on the fly. I think he really did believe his experiences – and that he had them, whatever that means in practical terms. I think there are quite a few possibilities for what that means in practical terms, but I don’t think he was a conscious fraud.
I’m tired from driving all day, so my brain isn’t firing on all cylinders. What’s the book about Mormonism and the magic world view? It’s a great read – and I think it’s absolutely essential to understanding that time period and the people like Joseph Smith who were born and raised in the burned-over district.
Quote:I personally don’t think he was “making it up” on the fly. I think he really did believe his experiences – and that he had them, whatever that means in practical terms.
This is an interesting idea and I suspect there may be some truth to it. For example, he may have truly believed he was making an accurate translation of the Book of Abraham.
However, there are some things like the Gold Plates that can’t be explained by being visionary – he either physically had them or he didn’t. If you accept the Book of Mormon as factual then your theory holds. However, if you don’t believe the Book of Mormon was on the Gold Plates then this is at least one example where Joseph Smith must have known that he was lying and thus making it up on the fly.
bc_pg wrote:1) I think TBMs often use the line of defense – “Satan is making up that lie, it never happened.” So for example many TBMs when presented with evidence that Joseph Smith married other mens’ wives deny it completely. The assume it is just the buffetings of Satan to make this lie up and that the evidence is false. So when FAIR admits that the issues is factual this is where the harm may be done. It doesn’t matter how good the explanation is, it requires the TBM to stop sticking their head in the sands of denial.
The problem is that a lot of lies HAVE been made up about Mormonism. Certainly we have a good few historical issues, but I also realize that opponents of ours have fabricated stuff as well.
Classic example… temple ceremonies…. I’ve been through them, like many people here, but because they’re secret (yes, they are secret, sorry), it’s difficult for us to deny or defend certain things. There genuinely are similarities with Freemasonry, but on the other hand, some of the claims about what goes on are totally false. I’m well aware that certain changes have been made…
bc_pg wrote:However, there are some things like the Gold Plates that can’t be explained by being visionary – he either physically had them or he didn’t. If you accept the Book of Mormon as factual then your theory holds. However, if you don’t believe the Book of Mormon was on the Gold Plates then this is at least one example where Joseph Smith must have known that he was lying and thus making it up on the fly.
I would say even from the position that there were never any gold plates one could make a fair argument for Joseph’s sincerity. At the time I believe there were many seekers (treasure seekers for example) that believed they were close to physical treasure, the fact that they never saw any notwithstanding. In this light and for argument sake – if we assume that Joseph never saw authentic ancient gold plates with his physical eyes, I think we could still make a case or two that would support his genuine belief in the plates. It is easy to think of reasons why the actual physical posession of the plates would be too risky, we have heard the stories where they were almost uncovered by would-be theives. I could see an understaning given from the angel that he “has” the plates for the purpose of translation, but since he didn’t need to actually look at the plates then it didn’t matter if they were hidden in the woods of Joesph’s hand, or if they remained in the hill under Moroni’s watch. The need to present an illusion of his posession would be to support faith and belief in the underlying reality. There are still other factors to explain, like Emma’s testimony that she felt the metal leaves through the cloth. Speculations may be endless about what was what when you start with the assumption exluding the supernatural, but I don’t think nailing Joseph as a conscious fraud is a necessary conclusion even from that perspective.
Joseph was a treasure seeker by nature and inclination. Therefore, the possibilities are not limited to just actual record on ancient plates or fraud. 1) Exactly as he recorded it, including an actual visit to an actual hill with actual buried plates, with the plates being of ancient origin and buried by Moroni. (i.e., translated/transmitted non-fiction)
2) Exactly as he recorded it, including an actual visit to an actual hill with actual buried plates, with the plates being revealed by Moroni and “translated” by the gift and power of God from generic plates with weird writing on them. (i.e., inspired non-fiction)
3) Exactly as he recorded it, including an actual visit to an actual hill with actual buried plates, with the plates being the prop for divine transmission of the word of God but not literally a translation/transmission of an ancient record. (i.e., truly inspired fiction)
4) Completely visionary experiences (which is supported by the actual descriptions Joseph recorded), with something physical used as tangible “proof” of what was seen in vision. (could be any of the genres above – and could be visions of “actual beings” or hallucinations, both of which would be “real” and lead to sincere belief in what was envisioned)
5) Made up stories by an intentional fraud.
There are more, but I don’t like sounding like I’m writing apologetics. The above (and all the other options I’ve considered over the years) is much more analytical than an attempt to reach a specific conclusion. Having said that, the “simplest” options above are #1 (ironically), #4 and #5. I can’t prove any of the options above, but I’ve studied everything as a history teacher by nature and inclination, and the intentional fraud option just doesn’t work for me. I’ve known a few “visionary” people in my life, and what I’ve read of Joseph fits them (and other historical figures) quite well. Therefore, I personally choose to see him as a visionary man – with all of the good AND bad associated with that orientation.
Just in conclusion, I also think it’s instructive for those who accept the stories literally that the actual quote is that his “name would be had for good and evil” – NOT that people would say good and bad things about him. When you parse that statement, analytically and not apologetically, it opens up all kinds of possibilities that make a lot of sense – at least to me. It certainly can make him much more complex and “real” than the caricature that has been created of him over the years – by both passionate defenders AND passionate opponents.
Quote:4) Completely visionary experiences (which is supported by the actual descriptions Joseph recorded), with something physical used as tangible “proof” of what was seen in vision. (could be any of the genres above – and could be visions of “actual beings” or hallucinations, both of which would be “real” and lead to sincere belief in what was envisioned)
5) Made up stories by an intentional fraud.
You mentioned that you didn’t cover every possibility. My personal suspicion is that it is a mix of 4 & 5. I suspect he was a religious person who lived in a world where it was heavily intertwined with occult magic and it wasn’t always clear where one began and where one ended. I suspect that he was truly a reformer who thought “all of them are wrong” and worked with others to restore what he thought was the truth. However, I also think he knowingly used some showmanship to procure interest.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.