posted
Again, I'm not questioning that. I'm perfectly willing to believe that Joseph started out pretty ordinary and got better as he went along.
What I find amusing is the idea that it is more unbelievable and remarkable that someone could write a good book than become the chosen messenger of the Lord. In other words, the statement, "a simple farm boy couldn't've written a book this good" would seem to apply a higher standard to writing a good book than to being chosen by God to build His renewed temple.
quote: Either he was something special or he wasn't (Tom)
See you can't have it both ways. Anti-Mormons took the tack for years that he was an illiterate bumpkin who could barely speak coherent English, let alone write it. Now Joseph Smith is regarded by some non-Mormon scholars as a legitimate religious genius (whatever that is). So when I call him a farm boy it's a reference to the usual anti take on him. Of course he was special. Just not from the standard world's criteria, on the surface at least. Very few biblical prophets are special in that way, but have special qualities that make them useful to God.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, anyway, he wsn't chosen because he was capable (or not) of "writing a good book". He didn't write it. He translated it. And he wasn't chosen because he was a good translator. He was chosen (in generally accepted opinion, mine anyway), because he had the spiritual qualities necessary, the physical and mental and emotional strength to deal with the stresses of the rest of his life, and because he was foreordained to do this, and so was sent to be born specifically at that time and place, into that family. It wasn't a random, "Well, what about him, he might work. Shall we vote?" decision. It had been set from the beginning of time.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Tom's point isn't as to which did or did not happen, but as to which requires a greater amount of belief.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wasn't joseph taught for 4 to 5 years berfore he was allowed to take the plates a way from the hill commaroah?
Posts: 513 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since Tom doesn't believe Joseph Smith was chosen by God or that the Book of Mormon is anything other than "(shrugs)it's okay", his point isn't really worth answering.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMHO it'd be harder to write a book like that, without God's help, having to fulfil all the conditions it fulfils, than be chosen by God. He chooses people all the time, in all walks of life.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had the same objection as Tom when I first read the Book of Mormon. It seemed just as possible that a farm boy could have written a pseudo-scripture and call it divinely inspired as for that farm boy to have been in direct communication with God. What helped to convince me were the testaments of other people.
First of all contrary to the literary genius theory we have his wife stating several times that Joseph wasn't particularly literate or even particularly articulate (I'll try to find the exact quote), and his wife was not a supporter of the church after Joseph's death, but she continued to support her original claim that he was divinely inspired.
In addition, the Book of Mormon is internally consistent, and even the best of authors, take Card for example, often make little slips or inconsistencies, even the Bible finds these inconsistencies the biggest one is reconciling the Old Testament with the New Testament.
Next we have to account for the golden plates. At least twelve people saw these plates and testified of their existance. It seems highly unlikely to me that they were all in conspiracy together to decieve people into believing a religion that regardless of its truthfullness, is at least harmless, some would say beneficial, and offered them no monetary gain. In fact they lost quite a bit supporting this truth when it would have been easier many times to just give in and say they'd made it up.
Supposing that the plates weren't real, where would Joseph have gotten the materials, as a very poor man, to mimic them to the degree that he'd be able to convince these other people of their existence.
To me this summarizes the other potential sources of the Book of Mormon, he might have made it up himself, but according to those close to him he lacked the ability. Other people, who later left the church but also maintained their testimonies that the plates existed, saw these golden plates whose existance is very improbable, and I can think of no other reason for them to have existed unless God provided them.
These are all rationalizations for a critical mind, and they were necessary for me in order to accept the Book of Mormon. The reason why I even bothered to look for them though is that when you read the Book of Mormon, you might not have any clue who these people are or what they are doing, but some parts of it just seemed right to me, and obviously to many other people as well.
Maybe you still think that my explanations are going for the more 'divine' over some simple and mundane explanation, but I hope it at least gives you an idea of what sort of thinking goes into rationalizing divinity, whether you agree or not with how I did it.
Posts: 349 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with your line of logic, Audeo, is that if we accept Smith's wife's opinion of his literary skills, we then have to open up similar testimonies regarding the possibility of whether or not he was indeed a chosen messenger of God. And given that there are several people out there claiming that THEY know what God wants, and that God doesn't want people to be Mormon, that leaves us a bit of a pickle. In other words, is it more likely that Joseph Smith's first wife got things wrong and he found a dozen people to lie or fool, or is it more likely that the Pope is lying about being able to commune with God? What about all the Baptists on this board who say they've felt the presence of God in their lives? Is their testimony to that effect less credible than Smith's wife?
And that's the difficulty I have with any attempt to say, "Well, it doesn't seem likely that this couldn't've happened, so this unlikely thing had to happen instead." Unless we've got some other standard of proof -- which, mind you, many Mormons and others believe they have -- it makes no more sense than saying, "There's no way you got home from work so quickly! You must have acquired superpowers!"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unless we've got some other standard of proof -- which, mind you, many Mormons and others believe they have
That's what I was referring to when I was talking to fugu - there's more evidence and considerations here than are encompassed in the scope of this thread.
Dag: After the translation was complete, the angel Moroni took them back.
quote: In other words, is it more likely that Joseph Smith's first wife got things wrong and he found a dozen people to lie or fool, or is it more likely that the Pope is lying about being able to commune with God? What about all the Baptists on this board who say they've felt the presence of God in their lives? Is their testimony to that effect less credible than Smith's wife?
Well, first of all, I don't think that Joseph Smith being chosen to be the prophet of God, excludes anyone else from any sort of revelation from God. I would however say that the Pope is mistaken, perhaps only in the degree to which he gets revelation, and as an ex-Catholic I have many reasons which I shan't post here for that belief. This doesn't make him a bad person, or any other Catholic, I should add.
I have certainly felt the presence of God in my life, long before I'd ever even heard of mormonism, so I don't exclude the Baptists from God's care, I just disagree sometimes with their interpretations. It seems to me that there are only a few options, the first is that someone is absolutely correct and the rest shall burn in hell, the second that some are closer to the truth than others, but no one knows it all yet, and the third, that religion is just something we've made up as an opiate to the masses. I'm a firm supporter of the second, and it's my opinion that LDS is closer to the truth than anything else I've heard.
Close enough that I believe it is the true religion on Earth, however there is still more revelation to come. If I'm wrong, then what do I lose? I still have a supportive church family, I live a life that fits in with ethics that I believe in and that maintain a dignity in humanity, and I get to donate a part of my income to those in need among many other things. Granted I don't require a church, or even a belief in God to do these things, but it helps sometimes to have a little prodding knowing that someone is overseeing your life.
So I've looked at the arguments and have seen that to me it is simply too disturbing to believe that religion is a mass delusion, particularly when I may have had some of those delusions myself. So I looked for the most likely argument, and I've heard a few, and found the one that fit best with my own values and was the most internally consistent. This doesn't mean that it's right, just that it seems so to me, and I'd never claim infallability.
My mother thinks that all churches are 'right' to the degree that God organized all of them in order for there to be something for everyone so to speak. I don't agree with that, I'm sure that one of them is right, or that at least there are varying degrees of 'rightness'. But your argument seems to be that since each of them claim to be the one and only true church, that they must all be wrong, or that it is futile to join any of them since there is no way to determine which one is correct with the information given. And that's fine, I just figured that I may as well take a guess, because there's a good chance that they're right to, and if they are then I stand to gain something, and I won't hold it against anyone if they've decided differently.
I realize that this is a bit far from your original question of whether it wasn't just as likely (if not more) that Joseph Smith was simply a literary genius as that he was inspired by God. To answer that I'll concede, it's just as probable that Joseph Smith made up the Book of Mormon, lied or conspired with at least twelve others to promote it as truth, and later was killed for his conviction, perhaps because he didn't want to look like an idiot and recant, as that a fourteen year old farm boy was in the right place at the right time with the right question to find these ancient plates that had been secreted only a couple miles from his home with a testimony of a group of Jewish refugees who set up kingdoms on the American continent and who were later visited by a man who died thousands of miles away and several days earlier and supposedly spent his life healing the sick and helping the poor as well as claiming to be the literal son of God. And since neither of these scenarios could be proven with hard fact at this date, it comes down to which you find more likely, or perhaps, which you'd rather believe. Given the information that I have, I choose to believe the latter, others may have other information or interpret the information differently and so believe differently. That's their prerogative and as I said before I wouldn't hold it against them.
Posts: 349 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with the question is that TomD. has asked it, and therefore any answer is useless. He has already made up his mind that religion is dangerous -- of any kind -- and therefore only seeks to attack. I could come up with the most perfect, logical, and sure answer and he would still find some kind of hole in it just to point a scornful finger. He is a troll, and nothing more.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why a simple farm boy? Because God chooses the weakest of the world to confound the wise. Why did God wait almost two thousand years to bring the Gospel back? Because time is of little value to God, with one thousand years as one day and one day as a thousand years. As far as the Gospel is conserned in LDS theology -- If God for some unknown reason decided to wait a million years to bring back the Church, everyone in that time period would still have the same opportunities as if it was brought back Ten years after the original Apostles death. The biggest difference would be that much more work that would have to be done.
Now for the really simple answer to the question at hand. Ask God. He is the only one who really knows the answers.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, of course, have never believed he was ever anything other than a troll. I will continue to treat him as such for that is what he is, no matter who believes otherwise. The only thing he is looking for is to be a pain in the ass and pick fights.
posted
Actually, its my gain as I find him a tremendously detestable human being hardly worthy of my attention. As such, ignoring him makes my life that much better not having to deal with his vindictiveness and flippant arrogance. The only reason I even answered the question was it was an interesting one.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somehow, an inability to accept an intellectual challenge to your belief and instead portray it as an attack, get defensive and then close off...I don't know, it seems beliefs have to withstand challenge. Those that can't... Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it was a "challenge" that showed some kind of respect, I am all for that. Its not, after all, like I didn't answer the question. The problem is that TomD. has shown a consistant disrespect in his questions. There is such a thing as having a good conversation with many interesting pionts and counterpoints. Then there is hitting your head against a brick wall (or in this context a hardened heart).
posted
And being hard headed and so defensive that any questioning becomes an attack, not matter how it's asked.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Taalcon -- except when those feelings from God say their Church is the correct church?
I was referring to feeling the presence of God. When it comes to interpretation and conclusions based on the feelings, that's where there can be a difference.
I'm someone who'se experienced both sides of the fence.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's nothing wrong with a serious, intellectual challenge to one's beliefs. It makes for an enjoyable an intellectually stimulating discussion. The problem is, Mormons are so used to vindictive, hate-filled attacks based on prjudice, laziness, lies and flat out bigotry that there's a conditioned reflex action. Very few anti-Mormons are prepared to argue scholarship, largely because they don't actually do any, but resort to long-discredited arguments, recycled over and over, even after they've been thoroughly refuted. Where's the discussion of evidence of Near Eastern settings for the first part of the B/M, the presence in it of long, complex and elegant literary devices foreign to western literature and unknown amongst scholars until relatively recently, the many other small bricks that over the last 20-odd years have been carefully built into a wall of evidence for the Book of Mormon to at the very least be taken seriously? Instead we have to put up with snide and smirking attacks that come from a background of very little desire to get involved in genuine intellectual discussion. Now, I'm not necessarily saying that what's been said in this thread falls under that category. But comments that Mormons should not react in a particular way to intellectual challenges to their beliefs when we are desperate to have some serious challenges that we can discuss intellectually rather than the usual claptrap are frustrating at least. (If this is a little garbled it's because I'm rushing, because I have a meeting to get ready for. Sorry. )
posted
"Very few anti-Mormons are prepared to argue scholarship, largely because they don't actually do any, but resort to long-discredited arguments, recycled over and over, even after they've been thoroughly refuted."
While I certainly agree, I should point out that most Mormons aren't inclined to argue scholarship, either. FARMS, for example, is hardly a scholarly organization -- notice the lack of anything resembling independent peer review -- but is often cited as the pre-eminent source of Mormon scholarship. If FARMS exposed their papers to non-Mormon scholars, I think their claims would be considered more credible.
posted
FARMS, of course, isn't going to do that because they are mainly interested in apologetics despite any noises they make to the contrary.
Don't get me wrong. Some of there work can be valuable -- but only in the context of apologetics.
Of course, we're really talking about two different types of discourse here -- apologetics -- which is intended to combat the claims made by attacks on Mormonism from other people of faith -- and scholarship -- which seeks to find truths via the foudational assertions and methods of the various disciplines.
Scholarship -- or at least the kind that can be peer reviewed -- is always going to fall short in the minds of most Mormons because it can't (and, imo, probably shouldn't) accept the "supernatural" claims of Mormonsim i.e. those that require extra-sensory experiences (via the Holy Spirit).
I do see positive signs, however, that at the very least Mormonism is becoming a valid (meaning of interest, import and treated seriously) field of study in some parts of academia. Claremont is leading the way in this effort.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, surely the fact that FARMS papers are out there to be read by anyone, scholar or no, means that they are exposed to peer review. The problem is that non-Mormon scholars who appear to take Mormon scholarship seriously enough to repsond to it on an academic (as opposed to dismissive) level are in danger of academic suicide, so little if any peer review takes place.
posted
Zalmoxis, you're right regarding the 'supernatural' aspects of Mormonism, and that's part of the problem. But the concrete thing that can and should be tested, and has been totally ignored by non-Mormon scholars for most of its history, is the Book of Mormon. That book is meant to have its 'genuineness' confirmed spiritually, because that's the nature of it's message. However, it is the concrete manifestation of what Joseph Smith claimed, and so is available to be tested and weighed. It's not FARMS' (or Latter-day Saints in general) fault that they've been the only ones willing to hold the Book of Mormon up to the standards of scholarship. For most converted Mormons, scholarly discussion will add little to their understanding of their faith, as that is based on faith, spiritual feeling, and so on. So for that reason, Mormons don't fear unfavourable scholarly findings. Scholarship and knowledge evolve, and what we knew 100 years ago has moved on, and will continue to, so Mormons are quite happy to wait for new discoveries to catch up with what we already know to be true.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The problem is, Mormons are so used to vindictive, hate-filled attacks based on prjudice, laziness, lies and flat out bigotry that there's a conditioned reflex action. Very few anti-Mormons are prepared to argue scholarship, largely because they don't actually do any, but resort to long-discredited arguments, recycled over and over, even after they've been thoroughly refuted.
This type of argument makes me furious. While I have no doubt that there are small, very vocal groups of people that truly hate Mormons, most people feel quite indifferent. There are many, many sources that list factual information about Mormons that is not always positive. While there is no way to undoubtedly prove that a religion is false, there is a great deal of valid, factual information that can discourage people from joining the Mormon faith. This is not "vindictive, hate-filled attacks based on prjudice, laziness, lies and flat out bigotry", it's valid information that raises valid questions about the Mormon faith. I've never been to FARMS, but I frequent fairlds.org to give me a different perspective on information that seems negative about the Mormon faith. I think that such sites provide decent explanations about how the factual information can be true and the Mormon faith can be true. In other words, I think that both sides can use reason and logic to present their cases. What it all comes down to is what Zalmoxis said- faith.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cashew: That's not how "peer review" is generally understood.
I'm not going to say that the peer review process is infallible or un-biased and depoliticized, but I do think that on the whole Mormon Studies could benefit from more peer review.
Your point about the lack of academics willing or able to provide such review is important.
However, I think that another key to the problem -- one that folks in the field can actually control to a certain extent -- is that too little self-policing has done to help improve credibility. Of course, I completely understand that many Mormon fora are going to engage in politics and polemics for/or against the Church/doctrine/culture/leadership.
I don't know a minority group that doesn't have the same problem. All I'm saying is that Mormon scholars haven't always acted in the interests of the field. And again -- things are starting to change (for the better) in my opinion.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:it's valid information that raises valid questions about the Mormon faith
I'm not calling you out on this so don't feel obligated to respond, but I'd be genuinely interested on what these sources are. From what I know [which granted isn't exhaustive -- my interests in Mormon-related scholarship is in creative works -- not in history and theology], there are *very* few people compiling such information or rasing such questions that don't have a dog in the fight.
Which isn't to say that all such sources are completely *invalid* or the questions raised aren't good questions -- but the overall frame of inquiry tends to be either apologetic or adversarial (even when it bears a scholarly imprint).
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's not FARMS' (or Latter-day Saints in general) fault that they've been the only ones willing to hold the Book of Mormon up to the standards of scholarship."
This is not quite true -- especially if you concede that FARMS does not in fact hold up the Book of Mormon to the standards of scholarship, but rather in its own mission statement declares their faith in its authenticity. There have been numerous non-Mormon scholarly studies of the historical claims in the Book of Mormon (and even more that would seek to obliquely address those claims, like studies of Western societies on the American continent), and none of them seem to bear out any of its unique assertions. Whether this is because God is deliberately hiding evidence of the BoM's truth from anyone who hasn't already accepted the faith, or whether it is for some other reason, the simple fact is that the Book of Mormon has failed to stand up -- as far as I am aware -- to every single bit of independent research done on its historicity and/or authenticity.
That there have not been enormously long lines of non-Mormon scholars queuing up to spend years guessing what Smith might have really meant by the word "horse" is not evidence of scientific disinterest.
quote: there are *very* few people compiling such information or rasing such questions that don't have a dog in the fight.
I'm sure you're right on this, but when both sides agree about the facts of an issue, but come to different conclusions, it seems fair to believe the facts. About a month or two ago, I decided to start researching Mormon theology and history. I did this mainly through internet searches and then compared findings with imformation on fairlds.org. To my suprise, FAIR addressed just about all of the issues that I could find. I don't know how you would define scholarly, but since they both use the same facts and then use different reasoning to come to different conclusions, the facts don't seem to be in question. And several of those facts do raise questions. For example, the Book of Mormon clearly refers to wheels, horses, iron, and elephants being in the Americas. A good deal of scholarly research has discovered none of these. That certainly does not disprove that it's true, and sites like FAIR have suggested several possible reasons as to why there is a lack of evidence. All the same, it is understandable how somebody could look at this information, and with no malice in their hearts, believe it constitutes proof against the Mormon faith. Again, I think the issue comes back to faith. I was simply angered by the sentiment that all things that question the Mormon church were hate filled and had no bearing in reality.
Zalmoxis, I don't want to continue this on the forum, because I think that many good people would be offended. If you want me to e-mail you the specific sites and issues that I'm referring to, please let me know and I'll e-mail them to you.
*Edit* In addition to fairlds.org, I also appreciated JeffLindsay.com. I think both do an excellent job of addressing the factual concerns that non-mormons have with the faith.
posted
it's not the sources of valid information that may be unfaviurable i was referring to in my post, it was rabid anti-Mormons, which is what I said.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for responding. My e-mail address is in my profile. I'd be interested in looking at where your doing your research.
Although -- honestly, I find the Book of Mormon historicity debates rather uninteresting.
I believe in the text as a believer. But I also regard the Book of Mormon as a translation and expect to find the same issues that one would find in any translation (even one aided by divine authority).
[Note: obviously this doesn't explain or explain away the historical issues you raise -- I just think that the debates that center around apologetics tend to capture what's least interesting about Mormonism as a theology and a historical movement].
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
