Joseph Lied: Why The Afore's Joseph Smith Trilemma Is A Logical Dead End

[Kishkumen]

Yeah, I'm not going to fight about this stuff with you, IHAQ, because, frankly, it isn't worth my time. If I do not hew to the skeptical orthodoxy, you start hinting that I am a con man. Classy. Stay classy.

[MG 2.0]

Yeah, I'm not going to fight about this stuff with you, IHAQ, because, frankly, it isn't worth my time. If I do not hew to the skeptical orthodoxy, you start hinting that I am a con man. Classy. Stay classy.

IHQ's insistence on binary conclusions and pressing them to the nth degree is why I do not interact with him at all anymore. Same with a couple or three other posters. Binary conclusions...from history...are almost always open to interpretive analysis that can lead one direction or another.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Yeah, I'm not going to fight about this stuff with you, IHAQ, because, frankly, it isn't worth my time. If I do not hew to the skeptical orthodoxy, you start hinting that I am a con man. Classy. Stay classy.

I was simply pointing out the contradictions of your position. On the one hand stating that you felt the case for Joseph as a con man didn't hold water, and then giving examples that showed Joseph behaving like a con man. Pulling the old L. Tom Perry briefcase move on us wasn't particularly classy, unless you did it as a spoof?

[Gadianton]

Dan's insistence on binary conclusions and pressing them to the nth degree

this would be a fair statement, and what the trilemma is in practice. For MG to agree with Dan's trilemma would be the ultimate flip-flop from a world of murky muck where nothing is as it seems, to one of unrealistic clarity where the truth pops right out from the power of simple syllogistic constructions.

I think it should be pointed out that the pressure put on Kishkumen is exactly what the trilemma was designed for. The trilemma in actuality, is a dirty move, which is why Dan wields it so fiercely. It's meant more for Kishkumen than anybody else. It's meant to force those people who are trying to be neighborly and say, "hey you know what, Jesus was a great teacher" and find good in something they don't personally believe, to either admit that Jesus is Lord or spit out that insult and be a total jerk. Because those are your only options. It's not really meant for IHAQ or Shulem or even myself, who are all too ready to admit Joseph Smith is easily covered under lying. It's not so much formulated to prove Jesus was unlikely to have lied as it is to force a Kishkumen to call Jesus a liar.

The fact that Dan returns to the trilemma so often proves that he has a vested interest in stoking the flames of anti-Mormonism, to block off the possible avenue for those looking to be neighborly and find enough good in Joseph Smith to coexist in the same community.

[Marcus]

Dan's insistence on binary conclusions and pressing them to the nth degree

this would be a fair statement, and what the trilemma is in practice. For MG to agree with Dan's trilemma would be the ultimate flip-flop from a world of murky muck where nothing is as it seems, to one of unrealistic clarity where the truth pops right out from the power of simple syllogistic constructions.

I think it should be pointed out that the pressure put on Kishkumen is exactly what the trilemma was designed for. The trilemma in actuality, is a dirty move, which is why Dan wields it so fiercely. It's meant more for Kishkumen than anybody else. It's meant to force those people who are trying to be neighborly and say, "hey you know what, Jesus was a great teacher" and find good in something they don't personally believe, to either admit that Jesus is Lord or spit out that insult and be a total jerk. Because those are your only options. It's not really meant for IHAQ or Shulem or even myself, who are all too ready to admit Joseph Smith is easily covered under lying. It's not so much formulated to prove Jesus was unlikely to have lied as it is to force a Kishkumen to call Jesus a liar.

The fact that Dan returns to the trilemma so often proves that he has a vested interest in stoking the flames of anti-Mormonism, to block off the possible avenue for those looking to be neighborly and find enough good in Joseph Smith to coexist in the same community.

Excellent point, thank you. Very enlightening.

[I Have Questions]

Dan's insistence on binary conclusions and pressing them to the nth degree

this would be a fair statement, and what the trilemma is in practice. For MG to agree with Dan's trilemma would be the ultimate flip-flop from a world of murky muck where nothing is as it seems, to one of unrealistic clarity where the truth pops right out from the power of simple syllogistic constructions.

I think it should be pointed out that the pressure put on Kishkumen is exactly what the trilemma was designed for. The trilemma in actuality, is a dirty move, which is why Dan wields it so fiercely. It's meant more for Kishkumen than anybody else. It's meant to force those people who are trying to be neighborly and say, "hey you know what, Jesus was a great teacher" and find good in something they don't personally believe, to either admit that Jesus is Lord or spit out that insult and be a total jerk. Because those are your only options. It's not really meant for IHAQ or Shulem or even myself, who are all too ready to admit Joseph Smith is easily covered under lying. It's not so much formulated to prove Jesus was unlikely to have lied as it is to force a Kishkumen to call Jesus a liar.

The fact that Dan returns to the trilemma so often proves that he has a vested interest in stoking the flames of anti-Mormonism, to block off the possible avenue for those looking to be neighborly and find enough good in Joseph Smith to coexist in the same community.

I second Marcus’s comment. That is an interesting and insightful commentary, thanks Gad. I have definitely not considered the difficult position Kishkumen is in - trying to maintain positivity about what he sees as his cultural identity alongside the obvious character flaws that Joseph Smith had.

[Physics Guy]

I don't think that Peterson is misinterpreting "beg the question", with the common misunderstanding that it means to call for a question to be addressed. I think he's clearly using the expression correctly, with its meaning of arguing for a conclusion using a premise that already assumes the conclusion.

He's just completely wrong to invoke the question-begging fallacy in this case. A critic can perfectly well resolve the trilemma with the verdict that Smith lied, on the grounds that Smith lied about the Book of Mormon being miraculously translated from ancient plates. This is not question-begging at all.

Peterson is just mixing up his own logic. He wants to conclude that the Book of Mormon must really have been miraculously translated, because otherwise Smith would have to be deluded or lying. So he gets ahead of himself and imagines that the only question that is at stake is whether Smith's claims were true, when in fact he is the one who has backed up to the previous question of whether Smith could have been deluded or lying instead of being a genuine prophet. Assuming that Smith's claims about the Book of Mormon were false is indeed begging the question of whether Smith's claims about the Book of Mormon were false, but it is not begging the question of whether Smith was lying or deluded. It is simply answering the question, as the trilemma demands.

I mean, suppose we apply Peterson's trilemma argument to a hypothetical person who has claimed to have received a divine revelation that the sky is yellow—and has never made any other testable claims. In this case, just as with Smith, we can take one of three positions: the person is a genuine prophet with a message from God, or is lying, or is deluded. By no means whatever is the patent falsity of the yellow sky claim somehow taken off the table, when we try to judge the trilemma, because saying that the sky is not in fact yellow would be begging the question.

We definitely are not forced to believe this person's claim about the sky just because, apart from the yellow sky thing itself, there is no evidence that this person is a liar or mad. No, it is not fallacious at all, but rather perfectly reasonable, to say that this person is clearly deluded or lying, because they say the sky's yellow, when in fact it is not. And, in the same way, there is no question-begging fallacy at all involved in saying that Joseph Smith was a liar because he lied about the Book of Mormon.

This is a perfectly reasonable and consistent resolution of the trilemma. It leaves the Mormon apologists with the same old problem that they always had, regardless of the trilemma, of somehow showing that the Book of Mormon really is what Smith claimed it to be. The trilemma does not let apologists escape from that burden. Any impression that it does is an illusion stemming from careless reasoning.

An unrelated point, about Smith's sincerity: For most kinds of claims, sincerity does count for something, and so it is worth discussing. The fact that a thinking human being seriously and sincerely believes something should have some weight as evidence for whatever it is, even if the sincere believer is stupid or ignorant or has ulterior motives. This weight may not be great, and may very well be heavily outweighed by other evidence, but it is not zero. And even if a sincere belief is wrong, the fact that it was an honest mistake instead of a lie is important for judging the believer's character. If their belief was sincere, then they're not such a bad person. At least they were humble enough to put aside their own self-interest and try to reach an objective conclusion about something, and then stick with it.

There is a special class of claims, however, for which I don't think that sincerity or insincerity even matter at all, for judging either the claim or the character. These are claims which are every bit as self-serving if they are sincerely held as they would be if they were deliberate pretence. A claim to be a king would be one such claim. It really doesn't matter even a bit whether I sincerely believe that I'm entitled to be obeyed and respected, or whether I am just trying to get people to obey and respect me by telling a lie. I'm just as much of a narcissistic bastard whether I sincerely believe it or not. Sincerely believing I'm royal is just another symptom of my narcissism.

A claim to be a prophet is one of those claims as well. If Smith had professed a revelation that wasn't so largely about making him very important, then his sincerity might have been worth discussing, but with his actual claims, his sincerity is a completely moot point.

[Kishkumen]

I was simply pointing out the contradictions of your position. On the one hand stating that you felt the case for Joseph as a con man didn't hold water, and then giving examples that showed Joseph behaving like a con man. Pulling the old L. Tom Perry briefcase move on us wasn't particularly classy, unless you did it as a spoof?

Saying that I am pulling an old L. Tom Perry is silly, though, and you know it. I have no dog in this fight. At no point was I inviting you to have a testimony of Joseph Smith and come back to church. Did you just read that into my words for the fun of it? It feels like any attempt on my part to understand Joseph Smith and Mormon history in ways that are not two-dimensional and thoroughly negative predictably invite hostile responses. It is frankly damn boring. I doubt you'll trip over your feet and land in a chapel with the bishop reaching into your wallet just because I said something different from the usual caricatures of Joseph Smith.

[Kishkumen]

I second Marcus’s comment. That is an interesting and insightful commentary, thanks Gad. I have definitely not considered the difficult position Kishkumen is in - trying to maintain positivity about what he sees as his cultural identity alongside the obvious character flaws that Joseph Smith had.

LOL. I actually don't find it difficult at all. I find it annoying that others find my doing so difficult to comprehend.

[Kishkumen]

I think it should be pointed out that the pressure put on Kishkumen is exactly what the trilemma was designed for. The trilemma in actuality, is a dirty move, which is why Dan wields it so fiercely. It's meant more for Kishkumen than anybody else. It's meant to force those people who are trying to be neighborly and say, "hey you know what, Jesus was a great teacher" and find good in something they don't personally believe, to either admit that Jesus is Lord or spit out that insult and be a total jerk. Because those are your only options. It's not really meant for IHAQ or Shulem or even myself, who are all too ready to admit Joseph Smith is easily covered under lying. It's not so much formulated to prove Jesus was unlikely to have lied as it is to force a Kishkumen to call Jesus a liar.

If so, in my case it fails. I do not feel pressured by the trilemma to choose one item on the list. It is the idea that there is a trilemma that does not work for me. Or, to put it in another, milder way, I have no use for it.