A Reason For Faith: Problematical Apologetics

[_DonBradley]

Hey Again Grindael,

I don't want my criticisms to overshadow the fact that your critiques and arguments are getting more and more trenchant and focused. I should remember to be grateful that I have you to keep me on my toes. And I do genuinely appreciate your convincing me that Joseph Smith compared the Kinderhook plates characters to Book of Mormon characters as well as to Book of Abraham characters.

Comparison with the Book of Mormon characters would probably have increased Smith's confidence in Kinderhook plates and thus, on my model, made him more likely to try and translate them using the GAEL as a potential key.

by the way, it was great talking Adam-God with you. We should talk more soon.

Don

[_DonBradley]

Having held the pious fraud model at one point, and having seen Dan Vogel's use of it, I can understand its appeal. I think I can ultimately present a more compelling model. If I ultimately get to my various relevant projects surrounding this, and if you read them, you'll have to let me know how I did.

Let us know when you are done.

Will do.

When I say pious, I think Joseph probably believed in God and such, but knew he was making things like the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham. The Book of Mormon is clearly fiction, yet Joseph claimed seeing angelic beings from the Book of Mormon story and claimed to have real plates on which the Book of Mormon story is found. He would have to be really delusional to believe the papyri contained the Abraham story, and God an idiot to go along with it. Some huge problems regardless of what Joseph believed is that figures like Abraham, Moses, Adam were not real people, yet he made very clear claims of revelation and translating from God that they were real, and that the biblical stories were fairly accurate.

Yes. I accord a very low level of historicity to the narratives of the early biblical patriarchs and see the problems you're calling out.

I don't think he may have bought into them completely either. The one thing about many frauds is that they tend to create frauds based on things they already believe in. I think Joseph believed things like his gold plates did exist. The real problem here is that the kinderhook plates would be a very important find for a real prophet who had real gold plates. This would be the most important question to answer when he was presented with these plates as being real ancient plates. A real prophet who communicated with God on a regular basis, who brought forth two translated texts, as well as restoring the words of Moses(not real ), would not make a secular casual comparison. They would make a serious inquiry of God. Yet we see this didn't happen. He didn't inquire of God which is a big hit to his claims of being a real prophet who communicates with God all the time, and instead made a very causal comparison to the GAEL, giving a fraud a plausible explanation for later, why he got it wrong.

I'm not convinced that Joseph Smith not inquiring of God was a "big hit" to his prophetic claims, but it certainly raises questions as to why he wouldn't have settled the matter by more definitive revelation.

Regarding Joseph Smith believing the golden plates were real, I'd be interested in hearing more of your perspective on this. Also, have you read Ann Taves's idea on Joseph Smith making plates and then sacralizing them?

Don

[_DoubtingThomas]

I believe in God in part because of cosmology, including both physics arguments indicating that time had a beginning and observations on the "fine-tuning" of the universe.

Thanks for replying.

The fine-tuning argument does make sense, it is one of the reason why I am not a positive Atheist, I am mostly a neutral agnostic. However, there are reasonable explanations such as "many universes", or the possibility of radically different forms of life.

The Kalam cosmological argument doesn't make any sense to me because it assumes the existence of a god outside time. A god outside time couln't possibly move or think.

I am here today because I was given a warning that anticipated a dangerous event I was about to encounter but that I couldn't have personally foreseen.

I strongly recommend The Improbability Principle by emeritus professor of Mathematics Dr. David J Hand. As an agnostic I am not saying you didn't have some God-given experience, I can't possibly know, but mathematical thinking is a reason why I am skeptical. You familiar with the law of truly large numbers?
For example, Dr. Hand writes, "We need to consider how many dreams, altogether, are dreamed by everyone in the world every night. What would be really extraordinary is if none of these happened to coincide with a matching event happening the next day"

Ultimately, I believe in God because my theistic model of reality makes better sense of the universe and my life experience than a non-theistic model has.

I understand, but are you completely convinced that there is a God? How is faith in God better than hoping for Cryonics to work? Isn't it best to be a neutral agnostic like me? If there is a god the worst thing that can happen to us is the Telestial glory. If there is no god the worst thing that can happen to us is not enjoying our lives.

The deep connections of Mormonism and transhumanism definitely impacted my decision to return to Mormonism. In fact, partly for that reason I chose to be rebaptized into Mormonism by my friend Lincoln Cannon, founding visionary of the Mormon Transhumanist Association.

I undertand, I think it is highly likely that there is a god-like alien civilization in the universe. However, many transhumanists say that Theistic religion is currently slowing down scientific progress. Many religious people are opposed to stem-cell research and human cloning. Most Americans are Christian, but in the scientific community the opposite is true. So what are your thoughts? Am I being unfair?

That said, I don't think religion reduces solely to an evolved mechanism, and even if it did, the brain circuitry responsible for human reasoning was produced by evolution as well: evolutionary origins don't invalidate a cognitive process or phenomenon.

I agree, but the author of the Illusion of God's Presence did have a strong feeling of God's presence experience. In his book he explains why it was most likely an illusion. Here is a good presentation by Dr. Wathey.
https://youtu.be/Lqi6vvwmLOw

Sweet! There's a lot in it that's just fascinating. Have you listened to any of the MTA conference presentations?

Don

I watched like three or four videos of the MTA. I will appreciateif you explain why faith in God in better than hope in Cryonics.

I chose to be rebaptized into Mormonism by my friend Lincoln Cannon

I don't know him in person, but I have him on Facebook. He seems to be very intelligent.

[_grindael]

When Don used the word autistic, I'm pretty sure he meant this definition: a tendency to view life in terms of one's own needs and desires, and was not denigrating people who have autism. I know him well, he wouldn't do that.

I would like to make clear that Don and I have our own style of critiquing each other's work, and hope that none of you are offended by it. That isn't our intent and we have private conversations going at the same time.

I've known Don for seven years now, and have literally exchanged hundreds of emails with him and had many conversations with him, some on the phone also. He's not an apologist in any sense of the word. He, like me, ardently defends his research and conclusions and I don't think that there is anything wrong with that. In some of our private conversations, Don's actually changed his mind about things, as I have when we run things back and forth. I think Don is very open to changing his views on Mormon history and theology when presented with good evidence.

Don has helped me with my research, he's helped me hone my arguments, and he's a person who looks at things way outside of what many would call the "faithful" Mormon box. We need people like Don to come here and post. I think it only adds to the dialogue here and helps researchers like me become better at writing and honing arguments.

[_Themis]

I'm not convinced that Joseph Smith not inquiring of God was a "big hit" to his prophetic claims, but it certainly raises questions as to why he wouldn't have settled the matter by more definitive revelation.

Well he did so many times with really trivial matters. I find it very unlikely a real prophet wouldn't take the most serious issue of the day to God like he claims to have done with so many trivial ones. A fraud wouldn't because they may view it as too risky. All those less trivial matters tend to be very subjective and hard to prove him wrong.

Regarding Joseph Smith believing the golden plates were real, I'd be interested in hearing more of your perspective on this. Also, have you read Ann Taves's idea on Joseph Smith making plates and then sacralizing them?

I am open to Joseph being a pious fraud, and certainly there are many historically interesting questions regarding this. The evidence available shows overwhelmingly that the Book of Mormon is not a story about a real people who migrated to the America's thousands of years ago. This means there was no gold plates, but at most a prop created by Joseph or someone working with him. I tend to think Joseph was a talented and smart individual, so I doubt he was so self deluded to convince himself that his prop was really ancient or that the Book of Mormon people were real. Maybe he convinced himself of the rightness of what ever endeavors he undertook. Humans can be quite good and justifying our bad behaviors.

[_Jersey Girl]

Funny how you the moment someone calls your crap out you suddenly are feeling tired and need a break from discussing things Mormon on a Mormon discussion board.

That's not why he leaves.

[_Jersey Girl]

When Don used the word autistic, I'm pretty sure he meant this definition: a tendency to view life in terms of one's own needs and desires, and was not denigrating people who have autism. I know him well, he wouldn't do that.

I would like to make clear that Don and I have our own style of critiquing each other's work, and hope that none of you are offended by it. That isn't our intent and we have private conversations going at the same time.

I've known Don for seven years now, and have literally exchanged hundreds of emails with him and had many conversations with him, some on the phone also. He's not an apologist in any sense of the word. He, like me, ardently defends his research and conclusions and I don't think that there is anything wrong with that. In some of our private conversations, Don's actually changed his mind about things, as I have when we run things back and forth. I think Don is very open to changing his views on Mormon history and theology when presented with good evidence.

Don has helped me with my research, he's helped me hone my arguments, and he's a person who looks at things way outside of what many would call the "faithful" Mormon box. We need people like Don to come here and post. I think it only adds to the dialogue here and helps researchers like me become better at writing and honing arguments.

+1000

I feel like I should say something. I haven't read the entire series of newer posts so bear with me. I've known Don Bradley for several years, going back to when he was an atheist. He is one of the most decent men I've ever encountered online and certainly, in approx. 18 years online, he's made my top 5 favorite posters. He is intelligent, informative, thoughtful, knowledgeable, reciprocating, reflective, intellectually honest, genuine--all traits that are hard to come by on these boards.

I dislike the way he's been treated on this thread and for what purpose? To get over on a perceived apologist? Bradley isn't an apologist and he never will be. He is a historian and has contributed to the dialogue for years ongoing, though intermittently. He is several cuts above your typical MG type poster.

Cam said above that he suddenly felt tired and needed a break from discussing things Mormon because someone "calls your crap out". Anyone whose bothered to pay attention over the years or bothered to actually read the post he's made recently, knows that's not why he leaves the boards. I guess it's more comfortable to view oneself as driving him away. He doesn't leave because you drive him away.

grin is right when he says we need posters like Don Bradley. People like Don Bradley (believer or otherwise) barely even exist on these boards and in my view, there simply is no one like Don.

He is a class of his own.

[_Jersey Girl]

When Don used the word autistic, I'm pretty sure he meant this definition: a tendency to view life in terms of one's own needs and desires, and was not denigrating people who have autism. I know him well, he wouldn't do that.

Thanks for clearing up the usage on that, grin. My post (where I mentioned this) wasn't entirely about an objection. If Don locates it and responds, you'll see.

[_Lemmie]

When Don used the word autistic, I'm pretty sure he meant this definition: a tendency to view life in terms of one's own needs and desires, and was not denigrating people who have autism. I know him well, he wouldn't do that.

Good to know, grindael. Maybe he can reconsider using that term in public posts then; to someone who doesn't know him well, it just reads like a typical, inappropriate slur, which is clearly not the impression he would like to leave.

[_Lemmie]

I would like to make clear that Don and I have our own style of critiquing each other's work, and hope that none of you are offended by it. That isn't our intent and we have private conversations going at the same time.

I've known Don for seven years now, and have literally exchanged hundreds of emails with him and had many conversations with him, some on the phone also. He's not an apologist in any sense of the word. He, like me, ardently defends his research and conclusions and I don't think that there is anything wrong with that. In some of our private conversations, Don's actually changed his mind about things, as I have when we run things back and forth. I think Don is very open to changing his views on Mormon history and theology when presented with good evidence.

Don has helped me with my research, he's helped me hone my arguments, and he's a person who looks at things way outside of what many would call the "faithful" Mormon box. We need people like Don to come here and post. I think it only adds to the dialogue here and helps researchers like me become better at writing and honing arguments.

Thanks for the information, grindael. I've really enjoyed reading this thread, as the Kinderhook Plate topic is not one I am that familiar with. You've inspired me to go back and do some background reading--quite interesting!