Daniel dodges a dilemma by substituting his own

[Kishkumen]

Or that there was anything written on the plates at all.

Of course!

[Marcus]

I agree with you that having actual plates doesn’t change much of anything unless you can actually get ahold of them and actually confirm that Joseph’s translation was at least somewhere in the ballpark of correct.

Or that there was anything written on the plates at all.

True. But, suspending disbelief just for the sake of argument, I'm thinking the ballpark of correctness would have to be a galaxy of correctness, because no area on this planet matches anything Smith put in the book.

[huckelberry]

He could have been the kind of narcissist who was convinced that he really was a great prophet, and that God Almighty was totally backing him up

But aren't all prophets "narcissists" to some degree?

In the essay I quoted yesterday, Richard Bushman also wrote: "Prophets are immensely confident, egotistical, bold historical figures who confront kings and attack whole societies . . . . And yet at the same time, these prophets present themselves as passive instruments in God's hands, saying only what they are told and doing only what God instructs" ("Joseph Smith and the Creation of the Sacred," in Joseph Smith Jr.: Reappraisals after Two Centuries, ed. Reid L. Neilson and Terryl L. Givens [New York: Oxford University Press, 2009], 101).

I can't think of any biblical prophetic figures who weren't convinced of their own divine authority: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos, John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, etc.

On the basis of personality traits alone, I think it would be hard to distinguish a "true" prophet from a "false" one. They tend to behave in similar ways (see, e.g., Len Oakes, Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities).

Nevo, I suppose I could see all prophets as narcissists in the same way that I might be able to see all humans as inevitably stuck inside themselves and having some narcissism. Otherwise I do not see any reason to see any old testament prophets as narcissistic. Does having confidence and a concern for the health of one society make you a narcissist? Not in the normal use of the word. Because our prophet, Martin Luther King, had some human failings and cared about people does that make him a narcissist? Not if one wants to keep language clear.

Your observation may fit too close for comfort (your comfort as well as mine I suspect) to Gadianton’s cynical proposal that all prophets are entrepreneurs (I am sure some are) And some may be narcissists.

I think I can see some point in saying it would be difficult to judge the validity or value of a prophet by measuring his narcissism. But how much of that is due to the difficulty in measuring narcissism? I do not think Physics Guy point was to try and measure the value of Joseph Smith by measuring his narcissism. Instead he proposed a large dose of narcissism as a possible explanation, glue, holding together earnest affect and theatrical manipulation.

The puzzle in this tread is how theatrical invention might work for good or perhaps ill. In some ways it might create a space for people to discover value. That value might not actually depend on the real history or validity of the theater props. However I have sympathy for Shades complaint. If theater props are depended upon as if real and they are not then a lot of vulnerability to confusion, fear of truths, suspicion and dislike of people not agreeing with the theater props is created. It might be possible to recognize the role of fiction in creating a worship space and want to keep that space but would it not be important to understand that relationship?

The fact that people know Santa Claus is fiction has not disabled his role in Christmas.

[I Have Questions]

The fact that people know Santa Claus is fiction has not disabled his role in Christmas.

WTF????

[huckelberry]

The fact that people know Santa Claus is fiction has not disabled his role in Christmas.

WTF????

too obvious? too subtle a connection? you do not like Christmas? You do not think fiction should have a role ?

[I Have Questions]

WTF????

too obvious? too subtle a connection? you do not like Christmas? You do not think fiction should have a role?

I don’t think you should be joking about Santa not being real. You never know who’s lurking and reading this. They might think you were being serious.

[malkie]

too obvious? too subtle a connection? you do not like Christmas? You do not think fiction should have a role?

I don’t think you should be joking about Santa not being real. You never know who’s lurking and reading this. They might think you were being serious.

They might think you were being serious naughty.
FIFY

[I Have Questions]

I don’t think you should be joking about Santa not being real. You never know who’s lurking and reading this. They might think you were being serious.

They might think you were being serious naughty.
FIFY

huckleberry has talked himself on to the naughty list

[tagriffy]

At what point does something become “sacred”?
At what point does something become “ancient”?
At what point does the reality or otherwise of an object’s existence become immaterial or besides the point?

Mind you, my answer to these questions is just the germ of an idea that has been percolating in my head for a long time and could use development. But it really boils down to something simple: When people decide they are "sacred" or "ancient" or beside the point.

If Joseph’s tale of the plates was a “parable”, does the church necessarily fail?

You would have to define "fail" before I could make a true stab at this question. My preliminary answer is now the church is established, the answer is no. For everything religious conservatives say about how things "must" be, religion can be quite flexible. Indeed, it must be, or it will die.

And finally, is the reality of the plates neither here nor there now the church is established?

I would say so. People take from religion what they need anyway. The question is how much do people need the reality of the plates? For DCP or MG, obviously their need is rather high; for someone like me, its a matter of indifference.

[tagriffy]

Hmmm... Are there actually people out there who 1) want to accept Joseph as a sincerely religious man, while simultaneously 2) rejecting his claimed experiences as not literally true?

Considering I more or less fit into that category, I would say the answer is yes.

What exactly would a person like that be thinking? Smith was so religious that he had to make up claims to get people to join his religion?

As it so happens, I am working on revising an essay where I discuss different ideas about how to accept both propositions. First, one doesn't have to think anything. If Mormonism works for someone, that is all they need; they don't really need to reconcile the proposistions. Possiblilities I talk about in my essay include:

Joseph as pious fraud. If one accepts modern biblical scholarship, then one has to accept much of the Bible comes to us through "pious frauds." That God has done so in the past means we can't reject this possibility out of hand.

Joseph was (self-)deluded. Joseph had to interpret God's messages for himself just as much as he had to do this for others. And people have a tendency to hear what they want to hear.

God deceived Joseph. I've floated the idea here and elsewhere that it was Joseph who needed the ancients because he was never entirely comfortable in his prophetic skin. So God gave him what he needed.

Dunn's authomaticity thesis.

Taves' materialization thesis.

Many ideas can also be combined in a number of different ways.

My essay isn't ready, but I would like to recommend Erik McCarthy's
"The Possibility of the Book of Mormon as Inspired Fiction". He goes into a few of the ideas though sometimes using a diffent tack.

To a person like that, the plates and DCP's deluded insistence that 'witness' means 'fact' are not "a major obstacle," they are simply another (completely ordinary and explainable) part of the imaginary, fantastical story.

Yes and no. They are certainly not a major obstacle. They are certainly "ordinary and explainable." But the plates, or more specifically the stories surrounding them, are an essential part of the Mormon mythos that I wouldn't really want to do away with. Indeed, if I were to rewrite the origin story, if anything I would actually emphasize the fantastical elements to really bring out the mythical aspects.