Book of Mormon apologetic of last resort?

[_Trevor]

One thing seems clear by now. Mormon apologists are so desperate to cling to the farfetched notion that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record that they will do whatever they can to maintain that position. But, I mean, how far will they go? What will they do? So far they haven't done anything illegal. They haven't fabricated bogus antiquities, like Joseph Smith with his "Golden Plates." No, the risks are too great in this day and age. Trouble is that people actually know a thing or two about Ancient America now. I think it will take the form of ever more desperate apologetic arguments with an increasing admixture of fantasy. I offer my own prophecy. I am interested in yours.

Book of Mormon as Ancient Religious Fiction

In the late fifth century AD, a Mediterranean trading vessel bound for a now non-Roman Britain blew off course near the Pillars of Hercules and ended up in Ancient America. The owner of much of its cargo was a wealthy Jewish convert to Christianity, who carried his most precious possession, his scriptures, with him wherever he went. Landing in Central America, he encountered grand stone structures and many strange peoples. He wondered, "how did they get to be here?" "Were they Christian?" "If not, why not?" "Were they of the Lost Tribes of Israel?" "If so, which one(s)?" He was shocked by their barbaric practices, and realized that if they had been Jews or Christians, they must have fallen into darkness and ignorance somehow.

In the grips of these musings, he decided to write a novel wherein he could speculate about these strange peoples. He spent the long weeks of his sojourn in this strange land writing this novel, until the ship could be repaired and he could return to the Empire. Before he left, he engraved one copy of the novel on thin sheets of gold that were bound together and buried them in a manner that was reminiscent of the practices he invented for the book, but which he had never personally seen among the natives. He left the shores of America to return to the failing Roman Empire. En route his ship was destroyed by a storm.

The natives, fascinated by this strange man whom they could not understand, thought that this gold book must be a great magical talisman. For this reason, they feared destroying it for the gold, so they entrusted it to a priest, who was responsible for burying the record and then protecting it. He passed his responsibility on to another, much younger priest before he died. Eventually, the record made its way to what would become western New York and the drumlin to be known as Cumorah. There the final priest buried it, but fell ill and died before he could pass along the responsibility to someone else. It was there that Joseph Smith, treasure seer, discovered the record and translated it "by the gift and power of God."

And thus the Book of Mormon may be fictional, and the Native Americans may not really be Hebrews, but, hey, the book is still ancient!

[_beastie]

Ok, here's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

The word "ancient" is not specific, so the author in my tale actually lived in the New England area around 1790 or so. He, like most other folks in the area, did not believe that the magnificent ruins being discovered could possibly have been created by the ancestors of the brute savages, and, besides, everyone knew that these people had to be connected with the Old World in some way (Noah's flood and all that). This young man was actually fairly well-off and lived a life of leisure, so he had nothing better to do with his time than fabricate a history he was convinced contained more truth than poetry. To impress a young lady he was courting, he had his book enscribed on gold-plated plates, but when she mocked him mercilessly, in a state of heartbreak and misery, he buried the book in a hill near his home.

[_Trevor]

Nice one, beastie! I like it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

One thing seems clear by now. Mormon apologists are so desperate to cling to the farfetched notion that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record that they will do whatever they can to maintain that position.

I recognize that it's the consensus in certain quarters that advocates of the Book of Mormon are "desperate."

I just thought you ought to know that, if such desperation is rampant among "apologists," I, at least, haven't noticed it. Perhaps I'm just not as well placed to observe them as the critics are, or perhaps we're all simply too clueless to realize the peril of our situation, but, well, none of my friends and colleagues seem even remotely desperate. In fact, everybody appears to be quite upbeat.

[_dartagnan]

Well hell Dan, who wouldn't feel "upbeat" when you got people like Bokovoy telling them to change their "paradigm" whenever uncomfortable facts are presented. Did you catch that rant of his last year? He encouraged all discouraged LDS and fence sitters to begin with the premise that the Church is true (at all costs apparently), and then let all the facts be filtered to conform to that premise. If the facts don't support the premise, then just change your paradigm.

Just listen to Will Schryver admit behind closed doors that if he were an outsider looking at the evidence, he would be compelled to believe Joseph Smith was a fraud who conjured up the Book of Abraham with a few helping hands. But since he begins with the premise that he was a prophet, no amount of evidence could ever dissuade him. So the trick is to get people to take this premise for granted before doing any true investigation into these matters. Most reasonable people would never even consider joining the Church when given a balanced presentation of the facts. This is why missionary discussions are designed to control the immediate environment and independent investigation is not encouraged. The Church uses this nonsense of "Satan works on the investigators" to justify their effort to control and filter what gets taught before a person is baptized.

On my mission, if we knew an investigator was going to attend his or her Baptist Church in a few days, we would try to rush and get the baptism done beforehand. Why? Because in all liklihood, the investigator will have come across information that didn't get filtered by the missionaries "stay on the topic" discussion format. Same thing if an investigators Protestant family was coming back in town the next week. Get it done before they are exposed to outside information. This is the same method used by car salesmen who push people to purchase a car on the spot. They know that if they do not sign that dotted line on the same day, then 90% of the people who walk out the door never come back. Why? Because they will have time to contemplate the situation and think more clearly. But in Mormon thought, "satan" must be working on them too!

The Church is doing nothing less than fostering a theology of anti-reason. Whenever reasoning is mentioned in LDS scripture or sermon, it is usually in a negative context (i.e. "Reasoning of men"). When the prophet has spoken the thinking has been done? Sure, they recanted that comment after there was a public outcry about it, but such blind acceptance resonates with most LDS even till today. I get it all the time from my wife and her relatives.

So be upbeat. The Church is true. Period. We can invent all sorts of contorted loopholes to rationalize away all the problematic facts. That's what apologists do. That's what lawyers do too, and it isn't at all a coincidence that there are more than a few LDS lawyers leading the apologetic movement.(Starr, Hopkins, Barney, Smac97, etc). Their job is to create a sense of doubt for the critical thinker. But it usually isn't reasonable doubt.

Thus, the apologists have engineered an unfalsifiable faith by modern LDS standards of reasoning, and it is borderline insulting to the intelligence of the masses. For this reason I no longer view Mormonism as a reasonable faith. And I think it is hurting the Church. The RLDS faith had to accept some form of the Trinity and reduce the Book of Mormon to status of "inspired fiction," because its membership was dwindling down to nonexistence. And we already know that the LDS Church is not above manipulating "God's word" for the sake of appealing to a more demanding and critical world (Negro/Priesthood ban being lifted in light of modern, non-LDS advancements in civil rights).

[_Trevor]

I recognize that it's the consensus in certain quarters that advocates of the Book of Mormon are "desperate."

I just thought you ought to know that, if such desperation is rampant among "apologists," I, at least, haven't noticed it. Perhaps I'm just not as well placed to observe them as the critics are, or perhaps we're all simply too clueless to realize the peril of our situation, but, well, none of my friends and colleagues seem even remotely desperate. In fact, everybody appears to be quite upbeat.

Does the actual case matter when the drama created by the image is so much more fun? I mean, my story is so much more entertaining if I imagine you guys freaking out over there.

I have found all of this to be much more satisfying if I maintain a very healthy sense of irony. So, I am not in the least bit bothered by your news. Bully for the lot of you. You are a wonderful set of folks anyway. It is irrelevant to the fun I would have arguing either side.

[_beastie]

I recognize that it's the consensus in certain quarters that advocates of the Book of Mormon are "desperate."

I just thought you ought to know that, if such desperation is rampant among "apologists," I, at least, haven't noticed it. Perhaps I'm just not as well placed to observe them as the critics are, or perhaps we're all simply too clueless to realize the peril of our situation, but, well, none of my friends and colleagues seem even remotely desperate. In fact, everybody appears to be quite upbeat.

Well, of course you don't see desperation.

It is the true believers ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. And it is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him.

Thus the effectiveness of a doctrine should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity or the validity of the truths it embodies, but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from his self and the world as it is. What Pascal said of an effective religion is true of any effective doctrine: it must be “contrary to nature, to common sense, and to pleasure”.

Eric Hoffer

[_mikwut]

Dartagnan,

Hello. I am curious regarding your post. All positions of thought are ultimately circular in the way you criticize the church. Science itself has many premises that are simply taken for granted for science to proceed. Reasoning itself can't get off the ground without accepting it as trustworthy, nor can any of are other cognitive faculties. I think a better way of articulating what your criticizing is rather than just accept Joseph was a prophet, one would say, trust your faculties, including the spirit. If the spirit testifies to someone of the truthfulness of the Prophet Joseph Smith than by all means proceed. There is nothing anti-reason about this.

Most of all, isn't it obvious to you that accepting a faith such as Mormonism is not a purely intellectual exercise and isn't that all your criticism amounts too?

Best - mikwut

[_Trevor]

Nice sig, mikwut.

[_beastie]

Hello. I am curious regarding your post. All positions of thought are ultimately circular in the way you criticize the church. Science itself has many premises that are simply taken for granted for science to proceed. Reasoning itself can't get off the ground without accepting it as trustworthy, nor can any of are other cognitive faculties. I think a better way of articulating what your criticizing is rather than just accept Joseph was a prophet, one would say, trust your faculties, including the spirit. If the spirit testifies to someone of the truthfulness of the Prophet Joseph Smith than by all means proceed. There is nothing anti-reason about this.

Most of all, isn't it obvious to you that accepting a faith such as Mormonism is not a purely intellectual exercise and isn't that all your criticism amounts too?

Mik,

The problem is that the process of using the spirit to ascertain the validity of certain claims is that it leads to contradictory and/or uncertain results.

Even believers concede this point when they insist on differentiating between "doctrine" and "teachings".