apolgetic strawman - the Book of Mormon as copy

[Anonymous]

There is a very common apologetic strawman that needs to be discussed. Charity has drug it out and set it up in the recent Book of Mormon thread, and it came up recently in the Thomas Dick discussions around the Book of Abraham.

The strawman goes something like this: The Book of Mormon is obviously not a direct copy, or is not obviously just a plain old plagiarized ripoff of a given proposed book, therefore the theory of a connection between the Book of Mormon and the ideas in that book is comprehensively disproven.

The problem is that nobody is saying that Joseph Smith just wrote the Book of Mormon as his own version of "View of the Hebrews" and that the Book of Mormon is really just a derivative work of it. Nobody is saying the Book of Abraham is just Joseph Smith parroting the words of Dick, as if he were "copying" Dick in the Book of Abraham.

Nobody's saying this. This is just a straw man.

What people are saying is that the Book of Mormon came about in a time and region of America where certain themes were being discussed, including in some books that Joseph Smith likely had access to, and that it was from this religious milieu that Joseph Smith picked and chose some of the ideas of his theology.

It would be like Joseph Smith winning an award for the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, and while accepting his award, is asked who some of the authors are that influenced his work, and he might have said well Ethan Smith was one influence, and Thomas Dick was another, and Swedenborg was another, and Solomon Spaulding's work had quite an affect on me, and some things I heard a Campbellite minister preaching about really had an effect on me, and so forth.

I haven't had a chance to really dig into the Stephen Lesueur book yet, but I did get a couple pages further in between innings during the last two night's Red Sox victories. I found this very delightful description which I think is one of the best ways of saying this concept that I've yet seen.

The religious concerns of these ancient Israelites paralleled those of nineteenth-century American Protestantism, and the Book of Mormon discusses many of the same theological issues (infant baptism, faith versus works, the nature of God) that preachers and revivalists frequently debated in upstate New York.

The critic of the Book of Mormon would say "yeah, and there's a very good reason why the Book of Mormon just happens to parallel the religious concerns of nineteenth-century American Protestantism, and there's a reason why a lot of the same things debated by revivalists and preachers in upstate New York during Joseph Smith's youth also happen to be in the Book of Mormon." It's that the Book of Mormon is a product of the 19th century, and is Joseph Smith's resolution to these debates, and that his theology is an amalgamation (Lesueur actually says this) of a lot of things that were believed or taught by various people during that time period.

Did Joseph Smith derive his theology from just one source? No! Was Joseph influenced by various specific people's teachings during this period? Undoubtedly, and the whole Ethan Smith/Solomon Spaulding/Thomas Dick/Swedenborg/Sidney Rigdon stuff demonstrates that clearly.

ps: when I say "Joseph Smith", I don't mean to imply that I think the Rigdon/Spaulding/Cowdery connection in terms of the writing of the Book of Mormon aren't possible. I don't know whether Joseph created it alone, or whether he got by, at first, with a little help from his friends. That the theological ideas come directly out of the 19th century though is, I think indisputable. Well, it's disputable by those who need the Book of Mormon to be true, but it ought to be indisputable. ;-)

[_Gadianton]

I agree.

It's funny when the apologists say, "Well there are key differences between the theology of Dick and the Book of Abraham". What matters are the similarities, and very much the verbiage. For instance, there are key differences between Quantum Mechanics and Kerry Shirts's esotericism. For one, Kerry doesn't understand Quantum Mechanics as Tarski demonstrated more than once. But is kerry's esotericism influenced by QM? Hell yeah..

[_dartagnan]

This is a great point that sethbag is making.

FARMS reviews and FAIR apologists have a tendency to focus on one single claim, turn it into a strawman and then highlight the differences between it and the Book of Mormon, and then conclude something like, “The evidence shows the Book of Mormon didn’t come from this book.” Then they’ll do the same with Swedenborg and then Dick.

They want to show parallels between the Book of Mormon/Abraham and the ancient word because that reinforces their assumption that these are ancient works. But they completely avoid dealing with the overwhelming evidences that show expected roots in the 19th century. Everything a critic would expect to find is there. One simply had to go digging in order to find out what books Joseph Smith read. Then apologists attack the critics for working off the assumption that they do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, and treat it like this is some kind of weakness. As if their entire argument rests on a presupposition.

If that weakens the critics’ position then it weakens the apologists position even more so since they have to dodge so much evidence for a natural production, in order to seek support for a supernatural origin. They have more burden of proof here, and I am tired of their bail out at this point by saying, “Oh the spirit does that part, I can’t prove anything to you.” They pretend to be interested in deductive and inductive logic but it is really just a shell game or semantics.

Don’t most objective people begin with the assumption that Joseph Smith was not a real prophet? People don’t just assume others are genuine prophets. They have to be convinced by the evidence. That is the job of the apologist. But the apologists tell one side while ignoring an entire countering viewpoint which is supported by more data. This is one of my pet peeves of the Church, and it really hit me when Will Schryver emailed me and told me that if he did not already begin with the presupposition that Joseph Smith was a prophet, then he would also believe the Book of Abraham was a gimmick of his creation.

This right here proves to me that the Church doesn’t teach these things because it knows that no right-minded person would ever believe Joseph Smith was a prophet had they analyzed both sides carefully. They do everything bass ackwards by trying to instill a testimony in the investigator first, rushing them through baptism and convincing them that all the feelings they are having is the spirit of God telling them the LDS Church is true, and then later on they are suppose to work these things out intellectually, using their testimony as the litmus test of course. It is ridiculous. I’d venture to say that nobody would ever get baptized if both sides of the Book of Abraham controversy were taught in the discussions. Without that foundation of a testimony, nobody would ever buy into this nonsense.

This, the Book of Abraham issue, is why FAIR began to hate me rather a few years ago. I was giving detailed explanations about the Book of Abraham debacle from both sides and I said I think this is where LDS apologetics is hurting the most. I was then bombarded by amateur apologists ready with their Nibley quotations, pretending these actually refuted anything Brent Metcalfe has said. Schryver and Pacman were the most vocal. It then hit me just how ridiculously ignorant Mormons are on this topic. I mean, I knew I was relatively ignorant a few years ago, but I thought I was the exception, not the rule. Then as I started to discuss the issue with others outside the forum, I started watching people lose their testimony – or at the very least, become more liberal on the issue; FAIR and FARMS couldn’t save them.

Sethbag also hits on a point where I think apologetics has become hypocritical. One of their strongest points in the past was that the anti-Mormons always tell their side without providing any apologetic explanations. The Book of Abraham video put out by IRR.org, for example. The best FAIR could come up with was a critique that complained because the video didn’t mention any of the lame apologetic explanations offered by FAIR. When critics fail to tell the apologists’ side they are “deceiving” their readers (I think the video would have been worse for the Church if this video detailed the ridiculous apologetic nonsense offered by Gee and Nibley.)

OK. So why a different standard when apologists and missionaries fail to tell the critical viewpoint? Why are they not obligated to abide by this unspoken rule of disclosure?

This is called integrity in any other context.

Incidentally, I have actually seen some books critical of the LDS faith, provide at least some of the counter-responses by the apologists. I have yet to see an apologetic piece provide any rebuttal arguments from the opposition. Most apologetic books pick a slew of lame anti-Mormon arguments and create other straw men. They then shoot them down and sign off with the author’s testimony.

[_Pokatator]

Sethbag and Kevin

You have both stated very well my thoughts for a long time. Joseph Smith went cherry-picking ideas for the Book of Mormon. I believe the cherry-picking of ideas is very evident in Joe's "continuing revelation" written down in the D&C also. I don't think he ever had an original idea and certainly nothing from God.

Thanx for the thread,
P'tator

[_Trevor]

If that weakens the critics’ position then it weakens the apologists position even more so since they have to dodge so much evidence for a natural production, in order to seek support for a supernatural origin. They have more burden of proof here, and I am tired of their bail out at this point by saying, “Oh the spirit does that part, I can’t prove anything to you.” They pretend to be interested in deductive and inductive logic but it is really just a shell game or semantics.

Yes! I am right there with you guys. This is a point I have tried to make many times. It first hit me when I was posting on a.r.m. When I saw how laughable some of these apologetic theories and tactics were, I could no longer call myself an apologist. The problem is that when someone assumes a certain conclusion, and then only accepts apparently confirming evidence, real inquiry has come to an end. One might call apologists intellectual advocates of Mormonism, but I am not sure what other title they fairly deserve.

The evidence for 19th century origins for Mormon scriptures is so overwhelming that to posit another argument without equally compelling evidence is to be obstinate and willfully blind in the extreme. At this point I think the question is not whether Joseph Smith wrote the scriptures he brought forth, but how one may respond to that fact. Why faithful Mormons feel they must insist on the antiquity of 19th century works baffles me a little. Pseudepigrapha is a time-tested strategy for composing sacred scripture. It is to be found all over the Bible. The question is whether one believes God can inspire this stuff or not, and since most Christian believers accept canonized pseudepigrapha as holy writ, do they have a choice if they want to remain believers?

I am not a believer, but to those who are I say, "get over yourselves and embrace the facts. If you want to believe Joseph was a prophet anyway, you'll find a way to do so, and one that does not require you to ignore evidence that is plain as the nose on your face."

[_Maxrep]

Great points made here. Another tell tale sign is the word of wisdom. Much of the substance of the WOW can be found in the temperance movement, which came about a decade or so before Joseph retooled it. Joseph was a borrower of ideas.

[_charity]

There is a very common apologetic strawman that needs to be discussed. Charity has drug it out and set it up in the recent Book of Mormon thread, and it came up recently in the Thomas Dick discussions around the Book of Abraham.

The strawman goes something like this: The Book of Mormon is obviously not a direct copy, or is not obviously just a plain old plagiarized ripoff of a given proposed book, therefore the theory of a connection between the Book of Mormon and the ideas in that book is comprehensively disproven.

Sethbag, you set up a nice little piece here, except that you tried to spice it up a little by putting my name and words I didn't say in your first paragraph. Didn't you think you could get people to read such a long piece unless they were looking to see if I am shot down in flames?

I didn't say what you said I did. But other than that, I suppose your piece is pretty accurate. I don't k now, one inaccurracy right at the begining makes the eyebrows go up.

[_Trevor]

Sethbag makes a claim:

There is a very common apologetic strawman that needs to be discussed. Charity has drug it out and set it up in the recent Book of Mormon thread, and it came up recently in the Thomas Dick discussions around the Book of Abraham.

The strawman goes something like this: The Book of Mormon is obviously not a direct copy, or is not obviously just a plain old plagiarized ripoff of a given proposed book, therefore the theory of a connection between the Book of Mormon and the ideas in that book is comprehensively disproven.

Charity denies the claim:

Sethbag, you set up a nice little piece here, except that you tried to spice it up a little by putting my name and words I didn't say in your first paragraph. Didn't you think you could get people to read such a long piece unless they were looking to see if I am shot down in flames?

I didn't say what you said I did. But other than that, I suppose your piece is pretty accurate. I don't k now, one inaccurracy right at the begining makes the eyebrows go up.

But here we see Charity saying this:

War styles, the climate in relation to war accounts, the system of weights, the use of directional terms. . . .Are you not aware of these?

And none of these are found in the View of the Hebrews. I highly suspect that people who say the two books are similiar haven't read one or the other.

So tell me, charity, exactly how is it that you imagine you were not caught using the exact strawman argument that Sethbag referred to?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Why faithful Mormons feel they must insist on the antiquity of 19th century works baffles me a little. Pseudepigrapha is a time-tested strategy for composing sacred scripture. It is to be found all over the Bible. The question is whether one believes God can inspire this stuff or not, and since most Christian believers accept canonized pseudepigrapha as holy writ, do they have a choice if they want to remain believers?

Excellent point. I believe the church at some point in the future will move to this strategy. So far they are clinging to the "Joseph was a either a prophet or a con-man" doctrine, but in order to survive they are going to have to develop an acceptable middle ground. Members in 1880 probably thought there was no way the church could drop polygamy, but they did, and it turned out to be a great decision. I'm not sure what the middle ground on the Book of Mormon will be, but the church has successfully reinvented itself for self-preservation in the past, and it can do it again.

[_charity]

Sethbag makes a claim:

There is a very common apologetic strawman that needs to be discussed. Charity has drug it out and set it up in the recent Book of Mormon thread, and it came up recently in the Thomas Dick discussions around the Book of Abraham.

The strawman goes something like this: The Book of Mormon is obviously not a direct copy, or is not obviously just a plain old plagiarized ripoff of a given proposed book, therefore the theory of a connection between the Book of Mormon and the ideas in that book is comprehensively disproven.

Charity denies the claim:

Sethbag, you set up a nice little piece here, except that you tried to spice it up a little by putting my name and words I didn't say in your first paragraph. Didn't you think you could get people to read such a long piece unless they were looking to see if I am shot down in flames?

I didn't say what you said I did. But other than that, I suppose your piece is pretty accurate. I don't k now, one inaccurracy right at the begining makes the eyebrows go up.

But here we see Charity saying this:

And none of these are found in the View of the Hebrews. I highly suspect that people who say the two books are similiar haven't read one or the other.

So tell me, charity, exactly how is it that you imagine you were not caught using the exact strawman argument that Sethbag referred to?

I suppose I didn't make myself clear. What I was talking about is causation. Your argument is that exposure to ideas in the View of the Hebrews, Campbellite theology, etc. CAUSED the doctrines, etc. to appear in the Book of Mormon. When I was in graduate school they worked hard to drum into us that correlation does not equal causation. That two things occur at the same time does not mean that one caused the other.

You have conflated the two. Some of what is contained in the Book of Mormon may have been in the culture at the time. This does not mean that their presence caused them to appear in the Book of Mormon.

I was not saying there were not ideas, or that some of these may have appeared in the Book of Mormon, or that if there was not a perfect correspondence that "proved" anything. My argument is that you cannot say that Joseph "borrowed" anything.

Are you trying to say that to be valid, a doctrinal exposition must be unique?