False Dilemmas and the Faltering of Faith

[_sock puppet]

by the way, a much more stark version of this sort of dichotomy is provided in the Bible, which mandates that if someone, purporting prophethood, prophesies something and the prophecy fails, they are to be stoned to death as a false prophet.

Yet there's quite a bit of scholarship showing that some biblical prophecies, even from such archetypal prophets as Jeremiah, failed. The fundamentalists would never admit this, of course. They'll go into all kinds of contortions to have the false prophecies in the Bible be actually true. But if we lay aside such apologetic thinking in both Mormonism and Christianity it becomes clear that neither could survive the kind of this kind of dichotomy that requires a prophet to always be right.

Don

At LDS meetings, is there open and frequent discussion about each member's views about which statements, say made at the most recent GC, are true and which are not? Or, is it an overriding implication if not explicitly expressed that the members are to follow all the words and teachings of the prophets?

[_Themis]

According to you they were mistaken, but not according to them. This doctrine was there from the beginning. No error in the "revelations". Therefore, it is not a "non argument", nor a false dichotomy, (from their point of view, which is all that matters here) it is the simple truth. This is not about what individuals believe, but what the leadership of the church taught and believed.

Absolute nonsense. Where the rubber meets the road it's always the individual who decides whether, and what, he or she will believe about a religion. Neither the religion's leaders nor anyone else can decide for someone what they will believe.

If one does not want to believe what a religion requires then one will not be welcome. I doubt I could stay out of trouble for long if I were promoting the idea of the Book of Mormon being inspired fiction.

You're also cherry picking your quotes to support the dichotomy, when opposing quotes can be found as well. While you quote Joseph Smith as saying that there is no error in the revelations he has taught, you could just as well, and opposingly, quote his statement to David Whitmer after the Canadian copyright revelation failed: "Some revelations are of God, some are of man, and some are of the devil." Far from setting up the simple dichotomy you claim, Smith acknowledged that at least one of his revelations was not from God.

I'm sure we can find quotes saying all kinds of things, but my experience in the church and church history is that they do promote the idea of Joseph's revelations being very very accurate and things like the Book of Mormon being essentially all true or all false in the sense of coming from God and being about a real people. The Canadian copyright revelation is not something you see Joseph or the church promoting even though he probably did at the time make an excuse for it.

by the way I think this post from Brad is the best one of the thread

Brad Hudson

I agree, Don. When a prophet speaks, his followers cannot rely on his designation as prophet to answer the question: Is the prophet speaking for God? But I think your line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that there is no reliable means of telling whether anyone is speaking for God. I think that leaves you in the same place as me -- sorting through things lots of people have said in trying to decide how to live my life. I just don't operate under the illusion that I can spot the word of God among all those words.

[_grindael]

According to you they were mistaken, but not according to them. This doctrine was there from the beginning. No error in the "revelations". Therefore, it is not a "non argument", nor a false dichotomy, (from their point of view, which is all that matters here) it is the simple truth. This is not about what individuals believe, but what the leadership of the church taught and believed.

Absolute nonsense. Where the rubber meets the road it's always the individual who decides whether, and what, he or she will believe about a religion. Neither the religion's leaders nor anyone else can decide for someone what they will believe.

My argument is not absolute nonsense Don, but proven by the statements of Mormon “authorities”. What you are doing is injecting something else into the argument -- that somehow them claiming that their “revelations” are infallible, has anything to do with what an individual BELIEVES. They are two separate and distinct issues. Leaders can claim they are the “Oracles” of God all they want, and claim that what they say (as Mormon “authorities” absolutely do) that they speak for and as God and that if they do not they would be “taken”, and that has absolutely nothing to do with whether anyone BELIEVES them or not. That is not my point or contention. You are making it yours, and therefore mischaracterizing my argument.

You're also cherry picking your quotes to support the dichotomy, when opposing quotes can be found as well. While you quote Joseph Smith as saying that there is no error in the revelations he has taught, you could just as well, and opposingly, quote his statement to David Whitmer after the Canadian copyright revelation failed: "Some revelations are of God, some are of man, and some are of the devil." Far from setting up the simple dichotomy you claim, Smith acknowledged that at least one of his revelations was not from God.

I’m not cherry picking quotes. They are MASSIVE in my favor. Are you really going to throw out a quote made some 50 years later? By the questionable David Whitmer? Where are the contemporary quotes, Don? Or at least half a dozen to support your argument made by Mormon “authorities” who were apostles under Smith. You are also preaching to the choir here, since I’m convinced Jo was a fraud. But that doesn’t change what he TAUGHT, backed up by Brigham Young, who knew him better than almost anyone. And others who also knew him well.

Hyrum Smith, as recalled by Abraham O. Smoot in the Provo School of the Prophets, used to say, about making prophecies, that "if you hit once in 10 times, that is alright."

Again, a quote long after the fact and made in private and not taught to the general Church membership on the stand. What is the context for this quote? Do you have the entire entry? Talk about cherry picking.

The Book of Mormon acknowledges its possible errors on its title page.

Really? Errors in the printing, not the revelations. Show me where it acknowledges that. Joseph Smith claimed,

"I wish to mention here that the title-page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated; …and that said title-page is not…a modern composition, either of mine or of any other man who has lived or does live in this generation" (HC 1:71.).

So, who is acknowledging errors? Jo or Moroni?

So what is this directed at? We have no idea. He claims that the Book was written “by the spirit of prophecy and revelation”, and later claimed that there were “no errors in the revelations I have taught.” So what errors does he speak of? Most likely printing errors. As John S. Dinger writes,

In 1837, LDS Church members Parley P. Pratt (1807-57) and John Goodson (1814?-74?) republished the Book of Mormon in Kirtland, Ohio. Though it took seven years for a second printing, Church leaders had discussed republication as early as 1833. On June 25, 1833, the First Presidency (composed of Smith and two counselors) wrote a letter to Church printer W. W. Phelps in Missouri regarding the reprinting of the Book of Mormon, and stated: “As soon as we can get time, we will review the manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, after which they will be forwarded to you.”9 Other printing-related projects and the subsequent destruction of the LDS Church-owned printing press in Independence, Missouri, by angry non-Mormons delayed the printing of a second edition of the Book of Mormon.

The second edition was financed by Pratt and Goodson, who were given permission to publish up to 5,000 copies; however, it is likely that only 3,000 were actually printed.10 Though published in the United States, many copies of the 1837 edition were taken to England, where they were distributed or sold by LDS proselyzting missionaries. This printing filled a need on both continents.

With this second edition, like virtually every edition that followed, changes were made to the text of the volume. As indicated by the letter to Phelps, Smith, and others–mostly Cowdery–worked to make the second edition of the Book of Mormon more closely follow the original manuscripts.11 Smith and Cowdery checked the 1830 edition against the Printer’s Manuscript in the winter of 1836 and into early 1837, marking up the Printer’s Manuscript in the process. As a result, Smith authorized more than 2,000 changes, mostly grammatical, to the text. The preface to the 1837 edition states: “Individuals acquainted with book printings, are aware of the numerous typographical errors which always occur in manuscript editions. It is only necessary to say, that the whole has been carefully re-examined and compared with the original manuscript” (p. v).

These are the errors that Smith speaks of, not the revelatory part of the Book of Mormon, which Smith claimed was given by God and contained no errors. He called it the most correct book on earth as you know.

But even without these quotes, the illogic of argument is present on so many levels.

That’s not my problem, but the problem of the Mormon “authorities” that make the illogical argument that you are attributing to me.

For example, you cite a statement by Joseph Smith saying that there are no errors in his revelations while ignoring that 1) asserting that his revelations are all right his not the same as staking his prophethood on that assertion,

He did not just assert that his revelations were “all right”. He claimed SPECIFICALLY that there were NO ERRORS IN THE REVELATIONS I HAVE TAUGHT. You are reading into it what YOU want it to say Don, not what Smith ACTUALLY says. You are the one ignoring what Smith actually said.

2) the statement itself is not in a revelation, and therefore not necessarily correct under the terms of the statement, and 3)

Here is the entry from the HOC:

Sunday, 12.—At 10 a.m. I preached at the Stand. The following brief synopsis of my discourse was reported by my clerk, Thomas Bullock:
President Joseph Smith's Address—DEFENSE OF HIS PROPHETIC CALLING—Resurrection of the Dead—Fullness of Ordinances Necessary Both for the Living and Dead.

When did I ever teach anything wrong from this stand? When was I ever confounded? I want to triumph in Israel before I depart hence and am no more seen. I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught. Must I, then, be thrown away as a thing of naught?

I enjoin for your consideration—add to your faith virtue, love, &c. I say, in the name of the Lord, if these things are in you, you shall be [p.367] fruitful. I testify that no man has power to reveal it but myself—things in heaven, in earth and hell; and all shut your mouths for the future. I commend you all to God, that you may inherit all things; and may God add His blessing. Amen. Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p.366

There is a difference between binding scripture and scripture spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost. This line of reasoning by you is pretty desperate. Even BH Roberts knew Jo was defending his prophetic calling in this speech.

the Bible does explicitly stake a prophet's prophethood on his inerrancy, yet the biblical prophets, in whom you believe, make demonstrably false prophecies.

Not according to LDS.org or the Church they don’t . Please SHOW me ANYWHERE, in ANY church publication where they claim that Biblical prophets make “demonstrably false prophecies”!
Victor Ludlow doesn’t mention it: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/10/unlo ... y?lang=eng

If you reject Smith, who didn't stake his prophethood on his revelatory inerrancy for his errors, you've got many times over the reason to reject the biblical prophets for theirs. Yet you don't, suggesting that the supposed force of your logic is lost even on you.

Where are you getting this from? You are putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say. Smith did stake his prophethood on his revelatory inerrancy, because he SAID SO. Brigham Young SAID SO. Other “prophets” have SAID SO. They can’t err in “revelation” because God would TAKE THEM. What about this don’t you understand? How am I cherry picking this? Show me otherwise by more than a couple of lame quotes. What I believe or don’t believe about the Bible is totally irrelevant. You are trying to make this about ME, not about what THEY SAID. I’m very surprised that you would.

[_Kishkumen]

It looks like Don is handling the issue better than I ever could. The man knows his stuff. He's one of the best scholars of Mormonism alive today. We are fortunate to have him pop by.

Despite the fact that I am no Don Bradley, I bring my own perspective to the table. And, I am in a sharing mood, so what the heck.

I am absolutely thrilled by recent developments among independently minded conservative Mormons, because if there were any group of LDS people who could effectively challenge the corporation, they would be the ones. Of course, I approach this whole thing as an unconventional Mormon by any standard. So, I am not particularly concerned whether Joseph Smith bragged about the correctness of his revelations (like he was going to be humble about them) or Wilford Woodruff loves spiritual tyranny. I am not obliged to buy into any of that. Neither is anyone else, really.

Those who have decided that Mormonism is all crap of course revel in the black and white view spouted by certain apologists, embraced by many Mormons, and they can support it with numerous quotes. That is fine. They repudiate Mormonism, find it stupid as well as unsupported by the kind of evidence they are looking for, so they will support that view any way they can. I am untroubled by that.

I start threads like this for the people who like being Mormon in some way and want to continue being Mormon--the people who see something good in it that they can work with. I don't start these threads for the folks who overwhelmingly see the bad, want nothing to do with it, and want to make sure everyone else see Mormonism for the utter fraud they believe it to be. I harbor no ill will toward such people, really. In fact, I consider many of them to be dear friends. I feel I can understand where they are coming from.

I stand by Paul's statement about seeing through a glass darkly. And, my faith and hope is that one day we will see things more clearly. It may never happen. But, it is something that I would love to have happen. I would love it if I survived the death of my natural body and understood things better than I do now. No, I am not banking on it, but I do hope and I would love it if it were true. I appreciate those people, be they people of faith or skeptics, who hunger to know more and understand better, and who are open minded enough and humble enough to see that we don't see through the glass clearly and probably won't for a long time yet.

In that spirit, I have a real difficult time, based on the evidence I have seen, trusting that anyone is much more than a fellow traveler on this trip. In other words, there is no way that I am going to place myself unquestioningly under the domination of a person who makes extravagant claims to special authority or divine insight. I am not saying I am closed to the idea of divine inspiration. I believe I have experienced inspiration. But that is quite different from saying that there is one person on the earth with special authority and everyone else has to go through that guy to obtain salvation. In my view, it is beneath the dignity of free, rational human beings to follow such a path.

So, yes, I don't think very much of the whole idea that the Book of Mormon is exactly what Joseph Smith claimed it to be or some kind of Satanic deception. In fact, that sounds completely stupid to me. Joseph Smith himself may have said so, and I feel no obligation to frame the question on his terms. I am responsible for my own quest for truth in this life. It is my life, and I will live it according to my best lights. I will not abdicate my personal spiritual and intellectual freedom and hand it over to kindly elders in Salt Lake City or self-appointed defenders of the faith.

[_DonBradley]

At LDS meetings, is there open and frequent discussion about each member's views about which statements, say made at the most recent GC, are true and which are not? Or, is it an overriding implication if not explicitly expressed that the members are to follow all the words and teachings of the prophets?

Sock,

The latter. Plainly, I disagree with the presumption that all leaders' statements are de facto true.

Don

[_Res Ipsa]

Kish, having a fellow traveler such as you is about as much as one could hope for on this journey.

As always, the fallacy of the excluded middle is just silly.

[_Maksutov]

Kish, having a fellow traveler such as you is about as much as one could hope for on this journey.

As always, the fallacy of the excluded middle is just silly.

It was Kishkumen's writing that impelled me to register and hang out here. Reading one of his posts gave my brain a boner and I liked it.

[_Symmachus]

I am grateful, noble Kishkumen, that you would ever deign to respond to my comments. You are a venerable and marmoreal pillar here, I an unbaked brick.

In mulling over your response, it occurs to me that we might be talking about slightly different things, or at least that you might be talking about a wider range of issues than I was in my reply. What does leap out at me in your reply is the social element you focus on, and that's as important as the scholarship, which is and should remain a communal enterprise.

In this regard, then I certainly agree that Givens, Miller, etc. are on a totally different plane from the old FARMSians, a fraternity which clearly brooks no dissent among the membership (exhibit A: how they treat Bokovoy) and sees little need if any for discussion with outsiders unless they're fawning (exhibit B: Margaret Barker v. Owen). Given that livelihoods are involved (well, except for the continuing-in-status FARMSians), that kind of openness certainly is no small thing and, I admit, is probably reflective of a more open intellectual attitude, even if it hasn't yet translated into less or less-ish orthodox Mormonism in their scholarship.

[_Symmachus]

It was Kishkumen's writing that impelled me to register and hang out here. Reading one of his posts gave my brain a boner and I liked it.

Same here + Dr. Scratch's reportage + DarthJ's utterly superb argument for an ancient Roman setting for the Book of Mormon.

Kish, having a fellow traveler such as you is about as much as one could hope for on this journey.

As always, the fallacy of the excluded middle is just silly.

On other hand, one must be aware of what one of my venerable teachers used to call the "metaxic fallacy": the idea that the truth must lie in the middle ground between two falsehoods, a.k.a. the golden mean fallacy or, as our dear friend Dan Wotherspoon might put it: nuance.

Come to think of it, he might have been more venereal than venerable, and it might have been a metallic phallus, and I might have had too much to drink.

[_KevinSim]

Reverend, I'm reminded of the arguments of C. S. Lewis and Josh McDowell and their "trilemma". Very convenient for Lewis and McDowell to limit possibilities to "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" while ignoring additional options, such as the Gospel records being incomplete, erroneous or invented.

Yes, when Lewis said there were only three possibilities he was actually declaring that Jesus might be a liar, but the Bible itself could never be a liar. That just showed how committed Lewis was to the absolute accuracy of the Bible.