roger, from within mentalgymnast's post wrote:How so? I don't see how the "it's a human production" viewpoint is any more disadvantaged in this case than the official theory. Of course there are holes in any explanation but those holes come by design. Joseph Smith obviously did not want people to understand how the Book of Mormon was produced. That should be a red flag for the official version right there. So virtually every Book of Mormon production theory has some unknown aspects, but that's exactly what we would expect from someone who's trying to hide something - unless he is terrible at hiding things and joseph Smith wasn't. How are the holes in the "human production" point of view any worse than the holes in the official version?
I don't see as many holes in the 'human production' scenario. The biggest wildcard is that we don't know a thing about the manuscript's disposition outside of descriptions of events during 'translation'. We can quibble about the various differing accounts of what transpired between Joseph, his scribe of the moment and any witnesses allowed, but we have no record or idea of what happened at any time before or after a daily stint of translation and we do not know the disposition of the manuscript between the completion of translation and the point that the printer was given the completed product. That isn't so much of a 'hole' as an opportunity, and a large one at that.
mentalgymnast wrote:OK. So all we have from Joseph Smith is that the Book of Mormon was translated "by the gift and power of God". All the theories of translation except for the "gift and power of God" declaration by Joseph entail 'intent to deceive' on his part. For whatever reason, pious (millennialism, following in the footsteps of Muhammad, Jesus Christ, etc.) or not (money, power, sex, etc.)
So let's go with the intent to deceive option.
You could do that, or you could also consider that Joseph was simply not connecting that his imaginings were not inspired of God. Or that he decided that the ends justified the means, on the premise that he was destined to do good works. To compare, how different is his situation than James Strang's? Do you believe Strang's story to be as credible as Smith's?
mentalgymnast wrote:We have the scripture found in the New Testament that says something to the effect that a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. We have Joseph teaching doctrines and principles throughout his life that point towards a love of God, a love of humanity, the expansiveness of the human spirit, etc. Think of all of the stuff we find in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. The letters to Emma. The beautiful 'revelation' on priesthood, three degrees of glory, the eternal and progressive nature of the human spirit...just to name a few. What do we do with all of that?
You only need to face this question if you regard Joseph Smith to be everything that he claimed to be, and infallible to boot. Otherwise, what you have are some interesting and sometimes beautiful ideas about the function of faith and the course of life after death, and none of them must fall based on Smith's story. They remain conjecture and are as valid as any other options. If they are meaningful to you and speak to your heart, why would they cease to be meaningful to
you if
Joseph did not know for certain that any of it was true?
mentalgymnast wrote:Why would a wicked and deceptive man teach and promulgate such expansive and beautiful doctrines out on the branches and yet the roots are corrupt and loathsome?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Declaring a particular tiered afterlife may seem beautiful until one realizes the drastically exclusionary nature of the setup and its basis in strangely arbitrary and trivial things. Subsequent Church leaders attempted to address the unworkable nature of the celestial divisions defined by Smith, and their additions ironically eliminate the need for BotD while introducing more conjecture as to what qualifies a soul for the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, but this doesn't dismiss that Smith perhaps proposed his version of the afterlife as a means to bring some peace of mind to his followers.
Let's say that Smith produced the Book of Mormon as 'deception', but not for power or money, but because he wanted to be a catalyst for what he felt was good and true. Once the story gained a following, could his sense of responsibility to their faith have led him to continue with claimed revelation that would attempt to explain what was considered unknown and fearful? Is it necessary that the two concepts of an 'artificial Book of Mormon' and Smith initially trying to
chart a promising path based on 'correct principles' must be mutually exclusive? Maybe they are not. Maybe this is precisely what was happening prior to more troublesome, later years in his history.
mentalgymnast wrote:I would guess that for many of us, that is an important question. Yes, other examples in regards to other individuals/churches can be given that might displace or make the corrupt tree bringing forth good fruit comparison somewhat a misdirection or inapplicable. I get that.
I agree. Obviously, you are not a Catholic, but it could not be argued that the Catholic Church does not do some very good things and bring peace to the hearts of many millions... whether or not some part of it was 'deceptively' created.
Likewise, even within the Bible itself, unless everything is believed literally then some parts are analogy or created to serve the purpose of teaching some principle, but not necessarily dependent upon an actual historical event.
mentalgymnast wrote:But we still have the results of Joseph Smith's works/doctrines as the 'roots' of a church that is viable, growing, and provides an expansive and eternal view of mankind. More so in the marketplace of religions than many, if not most, others.
It can be said to be so. Aside form Smith's perceived transgressions, I think that what bothers many folks on the edge, or who have left, is what the leadership of the Church has done with the doctrine in the last century or so vis-a-vis clouding the historical issues, or using scripture in a manipulative way to retain membership, or its interference in certain political or social issues.
mentalgymnast wrote:So I am of the opinion that there are many members of the church that look at the 'pearl' and realize that a pearl is not produced in a pristine/pretty environment. There is messiness involved in its production. But there is nothing else like a pearl. It is unique and beautiful. Active LDS members of the church are more often than not willing to look at the product rather than the messiness of the process and ask themselves "Is this of God?"
I understand that sentiment. But, I see it slightly different, in that I view the good aspects of the LDS Church - it's principal strength - as the product of the individual members doing their best to live by what are arguably good, moral guidelines, in spite of the leadership of the Church, which seems to have become bureaucratically bloated and morphed into something more akin to a corporation more interested in self-preservation than any particular person's salvation. I do not say that to offend; it it's just my own interpretation.
mentalgymnast wrote:So, when it comes to the Book of Mormon and how it got here...I don't know that we can ever really know for sure. We have the three options that Roger gave us. I think that when all is said and done, those that are willing to go with the "gift and power of God" route are going to be those that look at the fruits of the LDS church and see those fruits as being not only good but unique in the market place of ideas/religions. And for that reason they are willing to 'put on the shelf', so to speak, the unknowns...until further light and knowledge is made available.
There is no reason or responsibility to retain
the improbable or possibly deceptive in order to realize and practice the good fruits of whatever else may be part of the picture. Resolving to 'put it on the shelf' only serves to sour the positive side of the equation, as long as those shelf items are deemed more important to
preserve than to
inspect or dismiss. The best possible
truth that we can seek is what is most important, not rationalization of
stories that may not be real at all.
The leadership of a worldwide church cannot interact with each and every individual to express their support and love EXCEPT during Conference twice a year. At this time they teach correct principles to the best of their ability. They express their love and support. They teach to THE ONE. I don't really understand why you're pointing at the leadership of the church as purposefully discouraging or actively showing non-support of members in their personal desires to live, as you say, "good, moral [lives]".