A Newly Re-Energized Hamblin Pinches Off Another One

[Guest]

-

[_sock puppet]

Everything was now in place for Joseph to act. It didn’t take long to make his model. He had wooden frames, tin. He’d heard the preachers talk about the symbols of the church. Now there was going to be another one. Still, I am sure it took a last visit from the angel before he created his model. As Joseph passed the brushy place where the plates were on Hill Cumorah, Moroni stopped him and delivered “the severest chastisement” of his life. The angel told the faltering prophet apprentice, “I had not been engaged enough in the work of the Lord; that the time had come for the record to be brought forth; and that I must be up and doing and set myself about the things God commanded me to do … I know the course that I am to pursue, so all will be well.” When Joseph finished making the model of the plates, he had a crucial clue in the modern scavenger hunt for God. Then he took his model and buried it in its appointed place on Hill Cumorah.

I am not the first follower of Joseph to say he made the plates. In Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, Dan Vogel, a former Mormon, imagines the scene when Joseph cuts out the plates from tin and crafts them into a loosely fashioned book. He does not say when in his prophetic journey Joseph made the plates; he never speculates on how making the Book of Mormon plates might have played in and out of Joseph’s conscience over time. Vogel believes Joseph is a “pious fraud,” a prophet who created a prop for the sake of giving his religion reality for the many who needed an outward sign.

In a phone interview, Richard Bushman, another Joseph biographer and a faithful Mormon, told me, “The gold plates are the hinge between different views of Joseph. If he just had visions of God, it would be one thing. But once Joseph dug the plates up, there are no categories except fraud — or miracle. Our doubts about his sincerity hinge on that claim. In an effort to prove their authenticity, he shows the plates to other people and publishes a kind of deposition over their names. The plates and the witnesses then force people to a stark decision: Is he a fraud or did he actually find plates?” Richard Bushman believes completely that Joseph found gold plates. So do many other faithful Mormons.

I believe Joseph created a model of the gold plates shortly after his encounter with the angry angel Moroni. I don’t think it makes him a fraud — unless you think the Book of Mormon is a fraud. To me, the Book of Mormon is a strange work of God’s genius. There were four years between Moroni’s first visit and the night Joseph finally took the plates. All that time, at some level of his imagination, he’d been preparing to fulfill the truly unbelievable task of translating a work of new scripture. Daring to think he could do this took incredible belief on his part. I would describe him in some sort of collaboration with God as he moves toward the hour when he has to deliver. God is doing His part in calling Joseph to a dramatic role so far beyond himself. Joseph does his part by setting the stage: by making the plates and burying them. The angel’s impatience and fury is his cue to finally act.

The ends people will go in order to 'Save Joseph'. God was a bad director for this final, dramatic act, working in 'strangely genius' way, depending on an actor (JSJr) to play a role "so far beyond himself". Kind of makes god out to be an Ed Wood type of director, but it helps make JSJr look good. Ditching god in order to 'Save Joseph'. Simply amazing the lengths to which Mormons go to Save Joseph in the face of more damning facts and evidence that just keep cascading out to the public through the internet.

[_Kishkumen]

The ends people will go in order to 'Save Joseph'. God was a bad director for this final, dramatic act, working in 'strangely genius' way, depending on an actor (JSJr) to play a role "so far beyond himself". Kind of makes god out to be an Ed Wood type of director, but it helps make JSJr look good. Ditching god in order to 'Save Joseph'. Simply amazing the lengths to which Mormons go to Save Joseph in the face of more damning facts and evidence that just keep cascading out to the public through the internet.

Yeah, the lengths people go to to struggle for something they love, or against something they used to love....

Go figure!

[_sock puppet]

The ends people will go in order to 'Save Joseph'. God was a bad director for this final, dramatic act, working in 'strangely genius' way, depending on an actor (JSJr) to play a role "so far beyond himself". Kind of makes god out to be an Ed Wood type of director, but it helps make JSJr look good. Ditching god in order to 'Save Joseph'. Simply amazing the lengths to which Mormons go to Save Joseph in the face of more damning facts and evidence that just keep cascading out to the public through the internet.

Yeah, the lengths people go to to struggle for something they love, or against something they used to love....

Go figure!

It's kind of like a divorce. The depth of one's disdain for the other once the relationship is over is often equal to the depth of the prior love.

[_Kishkumen]

It's kind of like a divorce. The depth of one's disdain for the other once the relationship is over is often equal to the depth of the prior love.

Very true.

[_beastie]

So Hamblin cannot conceive of the Mormon God engaging in a bit of trickery for the greater good?

How odd, given that the Mormon God provided his justification for just that in the D&C, section 19:

1 I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord; yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world.

2 I, having accomplished and finished the will of him whose I am, even the Father, concerning me—having done this that I might subdue all things unto myself—

3 Retaining all power, even to the destroying of Satan and his works at the end of the world, and the last great day of judgment, which I shall pass upon the inhabitants thereof, judging every man according to his works and the deeds which he hath done.

4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless ctorment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my arest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

13 Wherefore, I command you to repent, and keep the commandments which you have received by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., in my name;

14 And it is by my almighty power that you have received them;

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and afinished my preparations unto the children of men.

20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have dtasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.

21 And I command you that you preach naught but repentance, and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me.

22 For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish.

23 Learn of me, and listen to my words; walk in the meekness of my Spirit, and you shall have peace in me.

See, Bill, just like the Mormon God thought that people needed to think they'd be damned in exquisite suffering for all eternity to make them behave, even though that isn't the truth, the Mormon God thinks you need to believe the Book of Mormon is actual history, even though that isn't the truth, either. You just aren't ready for meat.

If only Bill had actually studied his scriptures, he wouldn't be so confused.

[_Drifting]

I thought this was a thread about Hamblin's alleged self abuse problem...

[_sock puppet]

I thought this was a thread about Hamblin's alleged self abuse problem...

or about the effect of his taking Metamucil daily for a week?

[_Sethbag]

Sethbag, you're aware that the Community of Christ holds the Book of Mormon as scripture while allowing that it isn't necessarily a true story, right?

Yes, but that isn't really relevant here. We're talking about Hamblin and the LDS church. The LDS church has never, ever, even once, not even the slightest smidgen, taken anything remotely like the CoC approach. Neither the leadership, nor the preponderance of the active membership.

And Heinrich Schliemann, the guy usually credited with starting the search for Troy, really believed The Illiad was a true story, and sincerely worshiped the ancient Greek gods.

And Filo Farnsworth, an active Mormon, helped invent the television. How do either of these impact the debate of whether Hamblin's opinion piece reflects the mainstream LDS approach to the church's doctrines and teachings?

All this stuff about whether or not to take religious stories literally isn't quite as simple as you're saying. It's the difference between the Book of Mormon is "True" and the Book of Mormon "contains truths." I can see the point you're trying to make. In my believing days, I also would have disagreed that Joseph Smith could still be a prophet even if he made up the Book of Mormon. But my disagreement would not mean it is logically impossible for someone else to decide that pious fraud is an acceptable means to an end. As I already noted in this thread, the LDS Church teaches that God does this with many other religions in the world.

I can see logically how a person can come to believe in a "pious fraud" theory or whatever. But a pious fraud is still a fraud, ie: what they're saying isn't true, but the motivation for saying it wasn't only crass greed or self-interest. Pious fraud doesn't really help out Mormonism, which claims that Joseph Smith really wasn't talking to God.

I don't know what missionary discussions were being taught when you went on your mission, but when I went on mine, we had six discussions we taught, and the very first one was about God and Jesus appearing to Joseph Smith. It was about God having a church on Earth, that church being the LDS church, and God leading it directly through revelations given through his chosen Prophet, starting with Joseph Smith. This approach to prophethood is central to the church. It's central to the whole narrative under which the church is really God's kingdom on Earth. It's been central to the church's legitimacy since Joseph Smith, and has never, ever, even once become any less important.

It's one thing to say you disagree with the proposition that the Book of Mormon could be a made up story but still inspired in some sense. It is quite another to say that you intellectually can't even wrap your head around that proposition. The latter is what Hamblin explicitly says in his blog post. "I simply can’t understand people who say none of this matters." That's a very shallow understanding of human behavior. Understanding a different point of view does not equate to agreeing with that point of view.

Try to understand the following:
2 + 2 = 5
Personally, I'm trying to understand how this could be true. I'm trying to understand how a rational, intelligent, educated person in 2012 could believe it's true. I'm not doing so well here. Can you help me out? Can you help me understand how 2 + 2 = 5 could possibly be true? Can you help me understand how an otherwise intelligent, informed adult in 2012 could possibly believe this is true?

To Hamblin, a God revealing fiction to Joseph Smith, but representing it as fact, is as incongruous as 2 + 2 = 5. It's so "out there" in left field that he's having trouble understanding how an otherwise faithful, informed, righteous LDS believer could see that as something that makes sense. Either that, or he's using "I cannot understand" as a figure of speech meaning something akin to "I disagree strongly with to the point where I must question the faith or even righteousness of a person who could believe this, but that's a little rude to say, so I'll hide it in this shorter formulation".
[quote\Hamblin's own statements show that he can't fathom understanding an idea without adopting it, and that is one reason---but by no means the only reason---why he is ineffective at being an apologist. That is, unless "apologist" just means preaching to the choir (which, in LDS culture, it pretty much does).[/quote]
I think you just answered your own question. Do you really believe Hamblin's words on this subject were meant for the critics? Or were they meant for the choir? I think in a great many ways the Mopologists have always just been preaching to the choir. They have been unable to budge many critics with their crap arguments, because they don't have much of a leg to stand on, but their importance has been that wavering members, looking for a reason to keep believing, could point to the apologetics and say "hey, smart people are telling me there's no problem, so I guess there's no problem".

What it comes down to is that a professor at BYU and self-appointed defender of the faith is admitting he does not have enough metacognition at his disposal to consider why other people have different views about the nature of religious experience than he does.

You're overgeneralizing his remarks. His remarks were not about general religious experience. They were about some very specific beliefs and their relationship to the LDS church. I think you are trying to hold him accountable for something he never claimed to be doing.

Or maybe he really does understand it, even though he explicitly says otherwise. That would mean he's either being disingenuous for polemical purposes, or he's just a horrible communicator. Neither of those are particularly good qualities for rescuing testimonies.

I disagree. Remember who his audience is. He's trying to rescue TBM testimonies. He couldn't give a crap what you or I think, or even what the Sunstoners think. His words seem calculated to head TBMs off at the pass if they're even looking in our direction.

[_Kishkumen]

Sethbag,

For the life of me I am trying to figure out why you are even carrying on about this. The simple fact of the matter is that so many things weigh against Hamblin's basic position that one wonders how he can even maintain it as the only possibility going forward into what will surely be a more perilous road in the future.

It looks to me like his apologetics on this issue are basically a luxury ride up to and over the edge of a cliff.

First of all, his position is contingent upon a naïve and increasingly untenable understanding of the Bible. There are numerous texts in the Bible of questionable authorship and date. Conservative Mormon scholars are forced, against a mass of scholarship, to argue for outdated and unsupportable views regarding these texts.

If he accepts that ancient Biblical authors could have written pseudepigraphic works that long postdate the events they claim to depict, however anachronistically, then he has to accept the theological possibility that sacred scripture can be pseudepigraphic, historical fiction, and that this does not militate against its sacred status.

Alternatively, he can demote books of the Bible, based on the relative likelihood that they are autographs written during the author's lifetime. He will have created one hell of a proselyting problem, once he starts further meddling with the concept of the Biblical canon in that way. Mormonism already has plenty of problems in that area as it is.

Second, I don't expect the LDS Church to start officially teaching that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction. I agree that this would be equally or more disastrous. What I would, however, appreciate, is some kind of allowance for people to believe what they like about the issue and publish scholarship on it should they so choose. Just because the antiquity of the Book of Mormon is important to the Church as an institution does not make it a point that bears on the salvation of its members. I can't imagine that, theologically speaking, questions of historical fact will outweigh issues of personal behavior when God judges His people:

"We would love to allow you into the Celestial Kingdom, Sister Banks, because you fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and comforted the mourning. You may have faithfully lived the best principles taught in the Book of Mormon, but, unfortunately, you didn't believe it was ancient, so I am afraid you fell short of exaltation."

Such a scenario is absurd to the point of blasphemy.

Professor Hamblin isn't writing in the abstract here. He has actively sought to marginalize the kind of people who openly struggle with issues like the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. He isn't just opining on why the Church can't teach the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction; I can understand that. He is saying that people who believe such a thing clearly aren't faithful Mormons. That is not for him to decide. Period.