Sethbag wrote:Darth J wrote:Sethbag, you're aware that the Community of Christ holds the Book of Mormon as scripture while allowing that it isn't necessarily a true story, right?
Yes, but that isn't really relevant here. We're talking about Hamblin and the LDS church. The LDS church has never, ever, even once, not even the slightest smidgen, taken anything remotely like the CoC approach. Neither the leadership, nor the preponderance of the active membership.
That doesn't matter. Hamblin explicitly said he cannot understand how a person could have different religious beliefs than he does about the way in which the Book of Mormon could be "inspired." The issue Hamblin raised in his blog post is not orthodoxy within the LDS Church, but his intellectual ability to comprehend how it is possible for someone to have a different view of religious experience than he does.
And Heinrich Schliemann, the guy usually credited with starting the search for Troy, really believed The Illiad was a true story, and sincerely worshiped the ancient Greek gods.
And Filo Farnsworth, an active Mormon, helped invent the television. How do either of these impact the debate of whether Hamblin's opinion piece reflects the mainstream LDS approach to the church's doctrines and teachings?
You're framing the issue incorrectly. The issue is the nuance of people's views about religion. You were referring to belief in the gods of ancient Greece as a thing from the long dead past. Well, the "father of Mediterranean archaeology" (other people's words, not mine) in the modern era really for true believed in the Twelve Olympians and other Greek gods. Religion is not a simple, linear process of history. Here's the BBC talking some more about modern people who worship Zeus and company: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6285397.stm
Nobody I know of disputes what the orthodox LDS view of the Book of Mormon is. NOM-types who believe it is "inspired fiction" certainly concede that they are unorthodox in their view. I don't see the OP or any of the responses to it as arguing over whether the LDS Church officially teaches that the Book of Mormon is actual history. The issue people have been commenting on is Hamblin's self-professed cognitive inability to understand how anyone could interpret religious experience differently than he does.
All this stuff about whether or not to take religious stories literally isn't quite as simple as you're saying. It's the difference between the Book of Mormon is "True" and the Book of Mormon "contains truths." I can see the point you're trying to make. In my believing days, I also would have disagreed that Joseph Smith could still be a prophet even if he made up the Book of Mormon. But my disagreement would not mean it is logically impossible for someone else to decide that pious fraud is an acceptable means to an end. As I already noted in this thread, the LDS Church teaches that God does this with many other religions in the world.
I can see logically how a person can come to believe in a "pious fraud" theory or whatever. But a pious fraud is still a fraud, ie: what they're saying isn't true, but the motivation for saying it wasn't only crass greed or self-interest. Pious fraud doesn't really help out Mormonism, which claims that Joseph Smith really wasn't talking to God.
Well, as demonstrated, pious fraud is the official doctrine of the Church with respect to God inspiring leaders of other religions. It's not really all that hard to make the leap from "Koran = fake but still inspired" to "Book of Mormon = fake but still inspired" if you reject the literalism but see some spiritual meaning in it.
I don't know what missionary discussions were being taught when you went on your mission, but when I went on mine, we had six discussions we taught, and the very first one was about God and Jesus appearing to Joseph Smith. It was about God having a church on Earth, that church being the LDS church, and God leading it directly through revelations given through his chosen Prophet, starting with Joseph Smith. This approach to prophethood is central to the church. It's central to the whole narrative under which the church is really God's kingdom on Earth. It's been central to the church's legitimacy since Joseph Smith, and has never, ever, even once become any less important.
Do you remember saying in the missionary discussions that you cannot wrap your brain around how it would be possible for anyone to interpret the Bible differently than how the Correlation Committee interprets it?
It's one thing to say you disagree with the proposition that the Book of Mormon could be a made up story but still inspired in some sense. It is quite another to say that you intellectually can't even wrap your head around that proposition. The latter is what Hamblin explicitly says in his blog post. "I simply can’t understand people who say none of this matters." That's a very shallow understanding of human behavior. Understanding a different point of view does not equate to agreeing with that point of view.
Try to understand the following:
2 + 2 = 5
Personally, I'm trying to understand how this could be true. I'm trying to understand how a rational, intelligent, educated person in 2012 could believe it's true. I'm not doing so well here. Can you help me out? Can you help me understand how 2 + 2 = 5 could possibly be true? Can you help me understand how an otherwise intelligent, informed adult in 2012 could possibly believe this is true?
Yeah, I can. Religious experience is not entirely rational (some people would say not at all rational). It's not like math.
To Hamblin, a God revealing fiction to Joseph Smith, but representing it as fact, is as incongruous as 2 + 2 = 5. It's so "out there" in left field that he's having trouble understanding how an otherwise faithful, informed, righteous LDS believer could see that as something that makes sense. Either that, or he's using "I cannot understand" as a figure of speech meaning something akin to "I disagree strongly with to the point where I must question the faith or even righteousness of a person who could believe this, but that's a little rude to say, so I'll hide it in this shorter formulation".
That's because Hamblin sees religion as a zero-sum game, which tends to happen when you think you are an orthodox follower of The One True Church. That's also why everything has to be "us vs. them." NOM's and others who believe the Book of Mormon to be inspired fiction don't claim to be representative of mainstream LDS believers. They also have a more nuanced view of what "Joseph Smith was a prophet" means. So besides his cognitive limitations and/or disingenuous polemics, Hamblin is also directing his rhetoric at a straw man.
Hamblin's own statements show that he can't fathom understanding an idea without adopting it, and that is one reason---but by no means the only reason---why he is ineffective at being an apologist. That is, unless "apologist" just means preaching to the choir (which, in LDS culture, it pretty much does).
I think you just answered your own question. Do you really believe Hamblin's words on this subject were meant for the critics? Or were they meant for the choir? I think in a great many ways the Mopologists have always just been preaching to the choir. They have been unable to budge many critics with their crap arguments, because they don't have much of a leg to stand on, but their importance has been that wavering members, looking for a reason to keep believing, could point to the apologetics and say "hey, smart people are telling me there's no problem, so I guess there's no problem".
Of course Hamblin's blog is meant for the "choir." Who the hell else would take him seriously or see his rants as a reasoned, principled defense of faith in the LDS Church?
What it comes down to is that a professor at BYU and self-appointed defender of the faith is admitting he does not have enough metacognition at his disposal to consider why other people have different views about the nature of religious experience than he does.
You're overgeneralizing his remarks. His remarks were not about general religious experience. They were about some very specific beliefs and their relationship to the LDS church.
You mean, like, specific beliefs and relationships people develop as they interpret what they believe to be religious experience?
I think you are trying to hold him accountable for something he never claimed to be doing.
His exact words:
"However, I believe this fictional Book of Mormon approach is logically untenable for at least three main reasons."
"Either way, the only intellectually honest and coherent conclusion is that Joseph Smith was not an authentic prophet. The only remaining choices are liar or lunatic. I simply can’t understand people who say none of this matters."
Or maybe he really does understand it, even though he explicitly says otherwise. That would mean he's either being disingenuous for polemical purposes, or he's just a horrible communicator. Neither of those are particularly good qualities for rescuing testimonies.
I disagree. Remember who his audience is. He's trying to rescue TBM testimonies. He couldn't give a crap what you or I think, or even what the Sunstoners think. His words seem calculated to head TBMs off at the pass if they're even looking in our direction.
Your and my direction does not involve positing that the Book of Mormon was inspired by God even if Joseph Smith made it up a little bit. This blog post is not about criticism of the Book of Mormon in general. He is explicitly stating that logic compels either the official LDS version of the story, or nothing.
Even though the Church that officially teaches that the Koran is inspired fiction, which presents the same dichotomy of "liar or lunatic." But that of course is logically coherent and intelligible, because Hamblin's team said it.