DiscussMormonism.com

William Hamblin wrote:
1. Joseph Smith claimed to have had possession of golden plates written by the Nephites, and to have been visited by Moroni, a resurrected Nephite.

2. If the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document, there were no Nephites.

3. If there were no Nephites, there were no golden plates written by Nephites; and there was no Nephite named Moroni.

4. If there was no Moroni and no golden plates, then Joseph did not tell the truth when he claimed to possess and translate these nonexistent plates, and to have been visited by a resurrected man.

5. Hence, Joseph was either lying (he knew there were no plates or angelic visitations, but was trying to convince others that there were), or he was insane or deluded (he believed there were golden plates and angelic visitations which in fact did not exist).

The case against the Inspired Fiction theory can be elucidated with this simple question, which proponents of the Inspired Fiction theory must answer: if the Book of Mormon isn’t historical, then was Joseph Smith a deliberate liar when he said he had golden plates, and was visited by an ancient Nephite prophet, or was he merely delusional? Or was he perhaps a sincere liar, in that he came to believe in his own delusions? To these interrogatories a follow-up question may be asked: why would God choose a liar or a lunatic to bring about the Restoration? As Hamblin remarks,

If [those who read the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction] wish to maintain that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document, but that Joseph Smith was somehow still a prophet, they must present some cogent explanation for Joseph’s wild claims of possessing nonexistent golden plates and being visited by nonexistent angels.

Bill's argument is pretty simple, if there were no plates, then Joseph must have been a liar. If we can show Joseph wasn't a liar, then there must have been plates.

Unfortunately, since 1994 when Bill published this argument, the Internet has brought to light all of the myriad lies Joseph Smith told throughout his life. Faithful Mormons like Bill are stuck having to answer to us, the skeptics, "why would God choose a liar to bring about the Restoration?"

Why would God choose a man who decided to have a mock sealing ceremony in front of Emma? If he would do that to his own wife, why wouldn't he lie to strangers when creating the Book of Mormon?

drumdude wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 29, 2022 9:27 pm

Faithful Mormons like Bill are stuck having to answer to us, the skeptics, "why would God choose a liar to bring about the Restoration?"

I'm not a proponent of the idea that God can do whatever S/He wants; there are some things that I think we can know God won't do; but I don't see why choosing a liar to bring about the Restoration would have to be one of those.

The Book of Mormon could be a fantasy novel written on gold plates, delivered to Joseph Smith by Moroni, and Joseph Smith could have used the stones to decipher them. So the Moroni story could be real, but the Book of Mormon is fiction rather than an ancient record.

This is an enticing explanation if Skousen is right about the Book of Mormon as Early Modern English. If the Book of Mormon was a production of the spirit world and an astounding feat of literature, then why not go all the way and just say it's a production of English literature from the spirit world? Maybe Shakespeare consulted on parts of it?

According to K-R, the Early Modern English evidence, which implies the Book of Mormon is a miracle, breaks the needle. The witness testimony and all the archeological and geographical evidence K-R examined pales in comparison to the strength of Early Modern English. So who needs it?

The usual FARMS-style evidence K-R considers equates to a tremor. It's unnerving that Joseph Smith could have guessed this or that, where the Early Modern English arguments equate to a tectonics event that splits the earth into a thousand pieces. If you have that kind of evidence, then everything else is peripheral, in terms of evidence.

And given the Book of Mormon is through-and-through epic literature, then why not just admit that's what it is? Parts of the Bible are good literature, other parts aren't. You can't really explain the Book of Mormon as a historical monograph spanning centuries when it rivals Shakespeare from start to finish.

There are all kinds of reasons to accept the Book of Mormon as fiction, yet, as a direct revelation from God sent by a real, physical Moroni. Having it miraculous to prove Joseph Smith, spiritual, mysterious, but not reliant on archeological confirmation really gets the Book of Mormon out of a bind. The only downside is it flushes all the work of FARMS down the drain. But since the remnants of FARMS promote Skousen, it seems like they are good with that, even if they don't realize it yet.

The above is scholarship worthy of Cassius. I love the ghost committee idea, bringing great minds of the past to bring to light that which was hidden. I think "and it came to pass" needs more attention. There might be some old world parallels worthy of FARMS in those words. Maybe Luther used something similar? Plato? Aristotle?

However, the fork is either to lose the Early Modern English Queen or lose the LGT Rook. The choice has to be made but they aren't playing on the clock.

How long until missionaries are teaching the Early Modern English theory in the missionary discussions?

drumdude wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 29, 2022 9:27 pm

Faithful Mormons like Bill are stuck having to answer to us, the skeptics, "why would God choose a liar to bring about the Restoration?"

In 1957 cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin was launched into space. A month later LDS apostle Joseph Fielding Smith prophesized that man would never go into space. Was this the restoration or an example of the LDS bubble keeping the Brethren information free?

Moksha wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 29, 2022 11:59 pm

drumdude wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 29, 2022 9:27 pm

Faithful Mormons like Bill are stuck having to answer to us, the skeptics, "why would God choose a liar to bring about the Restoration?"

In 1957 cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin was launched into space. A month later LDS apostle Joseph Fielding Smith prophesized that man would never go into space. Was this the restoration or an example of the LDS bubble keeping the Brethren information free?

Was it really a month later? I always thought it was pre-manned spaceflight.

The Bretheren really are something special.

Well, lets check Joseph's Doctrine of (other peoples) Covenants. I can't remember the chapter and verse but, it doesn't matter, they are all the same. "Brother Terwilliger, I talked to God last night and he told me to tell you that you are to give me your wife, daughter all of your possessions and trot yourself off to a ten year mission in Antarctica."

Survey says - Yes. Even when his lips aren't moving he is making stuff up.

Nothing offered in support of the Book of Mormon is overwhelming as evidence. Even if one can't be sure exactly how the trick would have worked, convincing eight relatives and friends to lend their names to a statement about seeing something is totally the kind of thing that a decent con artist could do. So Smith's track record for honesty is pretty important.

If Smith had an amazing track record—if for example it was firmly established by reliable records that he had several times suffered injury just for insisting on telling the truth, and nothing but the truth, with no advantage to himself—then one might indeed be inclined to think twice about a bizarre tale of plates and an angel. I'd still conclude either that Smith was deluded or that he had suddenly turned dishonest, but I'd wonder a bit.

Given Smith's actual track record of shady shiftiness, on the other hand, the conclusion about the Book of Mormon is obvious. No angel, no genuine ancient plates, no historical Nephites. Sheesh. How long do you really have to think about whether that scruffy guy in the alley actually owns the Brooklyn Bridge?

Somebody could still decide that the modern fictional text of the Book of Mormon holds an inspired message, no matter who wrote it and why. I don't see why anyone would decide that, but everyone calls things as they see them.

Yea