(Disclaimer: I’m not an attorney, and don’t even play one on TV)
The Justices of the US Supreme Court are often categorized by how they interpret the constitution. The three broad categories they can be put in are
- Originalism:
- Original intent: Looks at what the writers meant when they wrote the text.
- Original meaning: Looks at how the public understood the words at the time they were adopted.
- Living Constitutionalism:
- Adapting meaning: Views the text as a flexible document that changes to fit modern times and values.
- Evolving standards: Relies on changing social norms and the spirit of the law over strict historical rules.
- Textualism:
- Plain text: Focuses strictly on the literal, ordinary meaning of the words today.
- Ignoring intent: Refuses to look at what the writers privately meant or wanted outside of the actual words on the page.
From a Mormon view point, how do we interpret sculpture and modern prophetic utterances using the above legal criteria? Given that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8), one might assume that our leaders (Q15) would be Originalists. Yet more and more today, I am seeing that the leaders are moving away from the original intent of the words, viewing the meaning of words used by the early Prophets (e.g. Joseph Smith) as flexible, and that the meanings change to fit modern times.
The example that jumps to my mind is what the word “translate” means. The Book Of Abraham states in its introduction that it is a “translation of some ancient records”. The Book of Mormon states on its title page that it is “translated by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof”. If we look at the original intent of these words, and what they meant to the public at the time they were written, it would be the common understanding of changing words from one language to another language. The original language was Egyptian hieroglyphics for the BofA, and reformed Egyptian for the BofM. The translated language was an archaic form of the English language.
This is how the people in the time of Joseph Smith would have interpreted these words, and I would guess it is how most people in the Church today would interpret it. It seems that with mounting evidence that neither the BofA or the BofM were translated from ancient text, the Church is moving to a “living constitutionalism” form interpreting of the above statements. They view the text as flexible and can change to fit modern times and values (or to counter evidence against the traditional meaning).
One of the earliest and best example of this change can be found in a 2020 conference address by Elder Ulisse Soares, who stated that the BofM was not translated in the traditions academic way [originalist view], but should be viewed as a “revelation with the aid of physical instruments provided by the Lord” There are many other examples of the word “revelation” being used instead of “translation”.
In regard to the BofA, the “catalyst theory” is often used to explain how the translations of the facsimiles are so wrong that even the Church admits it. The theory is that the papyrus was a catalyst for Smith, allowing him to receive revelation on the subject of Abraham.
Dave B did a W&T post a few months ago on how the Church is trying to change the meaning of what “religious freedom” means.
What other examples have you seem in the Church of words, concepts, or doctrine changing to fit modern times or values, ignoring the original meaning?
Wheat & Tares 
My “favorite” example is this is the word “preside.” It seriously makes me so angry every time. We don’t get to chose a particular word and place it in a document and then say that our definition of the word is not the world’s definition. That’s ridiculous. If you don’t like the what the word denotes, don’t use it. It doesn’t matter how many times we say our version is different, the assumptions and beliefs that society as a whole that link that word to others cannot be broken simply because we say so. That’s not how words work. Pick a different one if that’s not what you mean. It feels like gaslighting to me. And does anyone really believe that the preside part in preside really means love and service? If so, just say love and service. It feels underhanded.
The word of wisdom comes to mind as a doctrine that has mightily changed and contradicts the original meaning. D & C 89 states: “not by commandment or constraint” as to the counsel given. During JS and BY times, not only did they continue to consume beer and wine, but Brigham Young built a whiskey distillery in Salt Lake. Then prohibition came along, and Heber J Grant changed the rules, but interestingly, did not change the wording in section 89. It still states “not by commandment”, but now you’re commanded, though it doesn’t say that. That said, the whole thing is wonky. Everything in moderation, but that’s not followed (can anyone say “sugar?”). No hot drinks, but hot chocolate and herbal tea is okay, but not caffeinated tea, yet caffeine isn’t banned. Eat meat sparingly…You all know the drill.
The meaning of “Commons Consent” has been changed. It used to mean that the preferences and opinions of members were respected and given a voice. Now it means that if one is a member one consents to whatever decisions leadership makes, and this includes the appointment of leadership!
It is so interesting to see how the church blurs this concept. When it tells the story of the members choosing Brigham Young, it relays there was a competition where Young and Rigdon stood before the members and made their case. The people chose Brigham Young.
Nowadays, members have zero say in who is appointed leader over them. If it doesn’t matter what the members think, then why does the church tell a story that the opinion of the members mattered in the appointment of Brigham Young?
I initially thought the direction this post was headed was the fact that pretty much all the Church’s scriptures—Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants—fairly beats you over the head with the idea that the only valid reason to pursue wealth is to help the poor, that otherwise the pursuit of wealth for its own sake is an unmitigated evil, e.g. Isaiah 14:32, Ezekiel 16:49, Proverbs 23:4, Mathew 19:21-24, Luke 12:13-21, 1 Timothy 6:10-19, Jacob 2:17-19, Mosiah 4:16-19, Mormon 8:37, D&C 6:7, D&C 49:20, and etc. and etc.
For that matter, oft forgotten is the fact that both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, whatever else you want to say about them, really did attempt to establish a United Order of “neither rich nor poor” in the Midwest and Rocky Mountains respectively, in accordance with Acts 2:44-45, 4 Nephi 1:3, and D&C 42:30-39, and which is still codified in the temple endowment ceremony as the Law of Consecration.
I’m also preaching to the choir here when I state that, between the Church’s obscenely massive quarter-trillion hedge fund of which less than 1% goes to humanitarian aide, and watering down the Law of Consecration to merely mean never turn down an unpaid calling, that Church leadership has not followed the original intent of their own scriptures in decades.
This hypocrisy concerning wealth accumulation is of course not unique to us (it appears to be general across almost all sects of Christianity, across all historical eras), I nevertheless think I can be forgiven for holding the self-proclaimed Only True and Living Church to a much higher standard.
In a word, Yes – yes it is dead. Now, more often than not, it is simply regurgitated without thought or conviction. Tasteless pablum.
I think Elder Soares meant that Joseph didn’t do a scholarly translation–where he had sufficient training in order to translate the text by his owns lights. Rather, he used interpreters that were provided by the Lord to help him receive the translation through a revelatory process.
The intriguing thing to me is that “translated” has always had an expanded meaning in the Church when it came to the Bible. Joseph had no original manuscript he was inspecting when he “translated” whole new paragraphs into the Bible, and the 8th Article of Faith always seemed to me to be including composition and redaction and copying errors and everything else in the process of transmission that could go wrong.
Jack:
You forgot to say: “and when Joseph got tired of using the walkie talkie, he just inserted riffs from the KJV.”
All joking aside, you do realize that this viewpoint creates more problems and questions, right? For example: If these seer stones worked so well then, why not use them now? Why were the plates needed at all? If Soares is right, why didn’t the Church make that claim all along? We have historians pointing at the seer stones from the late 1800s through the 1930s, then leaders ignored the seer stones and ran with the Urim and Thummim story for roughly 50 years until the Q15 was corrected by historians.
It seems to me that even through believing eyes, it is obvious that church leaders have never known as much as believers assumed or hoped they knew. So originalist interpretation of doctrines, words and meanings are really impossible. Some are making things up as they go along.
Even Joseph Smith wasn’t one for originalism in his own teachings. He went from describing God in a trinitarian way in The Book of Mormon to a fully differentiated godhead in the Nauvoo period. You can even see that shift in his evolving retellings of the first vision—first an angel, then one God, then separate Father and Son.
Anon:
“If these seer stones worked so well then, why not use them now? Why were the plates needed at all?”
Those are good questions. And if we approach them the with idea that the project was inspired then what we get are deeply meaningful answers–regardless of how counterintuitive they may seem.
“We have historians pointing at the seer stones from the late 1800s through the 1930s, then leaders ignored the seer stones and ran with the Urim and Thummim story for roughly 50 years until the Q15 was corrected by historians.”
I think part of the problem stems from naming the interpreters “Urim and Thummim” in the first place. I love that name for seer stones–but even so we have to remember that, as for as the saints were concerned, the term could be applied to one stone or to a set of stones. And so what happened over time was a conflation of different instruments under one label. And then the rest is history–sort of.
“It seems to me that even through believing eyes, it is obvious that church leaders have never known as much as believers assumed or hoped they knew.”
I believe that many of them know more than we probably imagine.
Re: KJV: I’m of the opinion that presence of the KJV in the Book of Mormon helped that saints to receive the Book of Mormon as a companion to the Bible rather than as a challenge to it.
At Sunstone yesterday, Bill Reel did a 90 minute presentation on LDS revised words, concepts, and doctrine. I drew my own conclusion that books like “Mormon Doctrine” will only increase in value.
Jack: “Those are good questions. And if we approach them the with idea that the project was inspired then…”
If you approach every question and problem with your mind already made up, you will never learn anything new, never uncover error or harm within your own worldview, and you severely undermine your ability to empathize with others.
See also: Hard-heartedness, stiffneckedness, having eyes they see not, etc.
“Those are good questions. And if we approach them the with idea that the project was inspired then what we get are deeply meaningful answers–regardless of how counterintuitive they may seem.”
Or, reworded, “If we start with the conclusion that Joseph Smith’s not-a-translation translation of the BoM was inspired and if we do enough mental gymnastics, we can convince ourselves that the translation process all makes perfect sense.” I would note here that there are *no* official answers from Church leaders to these questions, much less deeply meaningful official answers. The meaningful answers that Jack is referring to are just things apologists have come up with because “we don’t know the answer” isn’t good enough for some.
“I believe that many of them know more than we probably imagine.” Church history and the data we have indicates otherwise.
“KJV: I’m of the opinion that presence of the KJV in the Book of Mormon helped that saints to receive the Book of Mormon as a companion to the Bible rather than as a challenge to it.” A few quick reminders:
1. The BoM has KJV language and references in it that precede their appearance in the KJV by many centuries. For example, Paul is being quoted/plagiarized centuries before he lived, there are the well-known issues of whether the Isaiah chapters copied into the BoM were available before Lehi supposedly left Jerusalem, etc.
2. The BoM contains KJV translation errors–the exact same errors that were in the KJV editions available to Joseph. If it were inspired, then one would expect translation errors to be corrected.
3. The BoM contains italicized words from the KJV translations that represent words translators added to “fill in the gaps” for words not present in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. One would expect that an inspired translation would provide better translations rather than copy the KJV translators.
4. There is really no evidence to support the idea that people in Joseph Smith’s day would less readily accept scripture not written in faux-King James English. While I understand the idea, it really is an apologetic invention that lacks evidence. How do we know that the BoM would have been less readily accepted if it had been written in the modern English of Joseph’s day? Answer: we don’t know.
5. We have personal letters from Joseph written/dictated right around the time of the BoM translation. These letters were not intended to be scripture, yet it is amazing how full of KJV references they are–60-70% of these letters are direct copies or easy-to-spot riffs on KJV verses. This demonstrates:
a. Contrary to what Emma said (Joseph “could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictat[e] a book like the Book of Mormon”), Joseph could construct very well-worded letters at the time of the BoM translation.
b. KJV language and verses literally filled Joseph’s head. If the BoM originates from Joseph, it is no surprise that it is full of KJV references.
Kirkstall and mountainclimber479,
Moroni, as you know, invites the reader to ask God if the record is true. But right before that invitation he primes the reader with these words:
“Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.”
He’s trying to soften the hearts of his brethren (the reader) by getting them to remember the goodness of God. And what this does is–it opens the door to deep consideration of the reality of God–and thus generates an empathy of sorts towards those who claim to bear his message.
Now that doesn’t mean that the reader will always believe if they follow Moroni’s method. But it does mean that those who do as he suggests will be less likely to dismiss his invitation out of hand–and therefore have a better chance of receiving his invitation.
That’s what I was going for–if that helps.
***
mountainclimber479
Here’s a comprehensive article on the KJV in the Book of Mormon:
https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/missing-words-king-james-bible-italics-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon-and-joseph-smith-as-an-unlearned-reader
Before I go read everyone else’s thoughts, I want to put down the idea that popped into my head. Case before the supreme …um …well, I have no idea who the Supreme Court would be when we apply the idea of originalism to the church. But our case to examine would be, did Joseph Smith start polygamy?
We W&T readers get to be the judges. Since this is just for fun anyway.
The first question to me is what is the equivalent of the US’s constitution and I suppose that would be our scripture. Our scripture spans a few years and I won’t bother figuring out how many because that point should be moot because our US constitution does also. Articles were added as late as in the 1970s for both.
The process of adding stuff differs for the LDS scripture in that our scripture says “common consent” rather than ratification by states. Well, we have a problem in that the last few parts added to our scripture were kind of added by general authorities and never voted for by the membership. But ALL amendments to the constitution follow the legal pattern of ratification by 2/3 of the states. So, perhaps the last few parts of our scripture don’t qualify as scripture?
But I think we can just kick that problem down the road for our current question, because the part we are interested in was voted on by the membership and is section 132 of D&C. Accepted by common consent as binding on the church. Binding meaning that you believe it or are kind of apostate. So, we have legit scripture according to our scriptural definition of scripture. (If you followed the logic of that last sentence, congrats)
Even though there are statements by Joseph Smith denying that he practiced polygamy, for originalism it only matters what got put down in official scripture. The scripture talks about Joseph taking other wives and that Emma had to accept them. So, even though it was officially written down after Joseph death, it talks about him taking other wives. So, it is not a problem like saying that George Washington supported blacks voting because that is in our constitution. Although it allows all men to vote, the constitution does not claim anything about Washington letting his slaves vote. It doesn’t matter that it was written by Brigham Young after Joseph died, because our scripture that was accepted by the membership as “truth” talks about Joseph and Emma practicing polygamy. So, the concept that Joseph Smith practiced is right there is our scripture saying he did whether or not Joseph admitted it publicly.
So, originalism would say that Joseph did practice polygamy because it is in our scripture that was voted in by the membership of the church.
Now if we say that we are ruled more by our modern prophet than by our scripture, and that we do not practice any form of originalism, we reach the same conclusion because our current prophet would say that Joseph started polygamy.
There is probably a very good argument for the idea that we reject originalism. But prophetic infallibility is no fun.
Jack,
If someone wants to read the BoM as a book that brings them closer to God without worrying about historicity, that’s fine. Plenty of people find real value in that.
But that isn’t where this discussion started. The question on the table was, “Why were the plates needed if they weren’t really used in the translation process?” Pointing to Moroni’s promise doesn’t answer that, because the question underneath it is why we should believe Moroni was a real person to begin with. Telling someone whose confidence in the book’s historicity is genuinely shaken to trust the counsel of a character whose existence is the thing in doubt is circular.
**********
On the Interpreter article–have you read it closely? It’s long, so here is the short version.
Stan Spencer is trying to explain why the biblical chapters in the BoM keep dropping or garbling precisely the words the KJV prints in italics. In the two chapters he analyzes in detail (2 Nephi 16-17), italicized words go missing at roughly forty times the rate of non-italicized ones. He is candid that a number of the resulting variants damage the grammar or muddle Isaiah’s meaning, and that in those chapters the BoM never once matches the corrections later scholarship made to the KJV–it follows the KJV every time. That’s his assessment, not just mine. He also concludes that B.H. Roberts’s century-old explanation, that the differences preserve superior ancient readings from the plates, doesn’t hold up.
His alternative is what he calls the “Missing Words Hypothesis.” Two people stand behind the English text. An unnamed prior translator produced the English translation, apparently in the 1500s or 1600s (this is the Early Modern English argument borrowed from Skousen and Carmack), and deliberately stripped out every word the KJV had italicized. This translator is not God; Spencer allows only that the work came from someone else, mortal or immortal. Joseph’s role is to see that finished English text in vision and read it aloud. Where the stripped italics left the text rough, Joseph guessed at the missing words and patched the holes. Sometimes the guesses worked. Often they didn’t, because he was unlearned and unfamiliar with the passages. The article’s own subtitle is “Joseph Smith as an Unlearned Reader.”
So under this theory Joseph did not translate anything. He read another person’s translation aloud and introduced errors into it. If you find yourself wondering what Joseph is actually needed for, you’re not alone.
Is this an example of the “deeply meaningful answers” that you say emerge once we grant the project was inspired? I hope not, because what I see is elaborate reverse-engineering by someone who fixed the conclusion first and then built whatever machinery the evidence demanded–an anonymous Elizabethan translator, a visioned parchment, a well-meaning farm boy degrading the text as he reads it. Notice also what the article concedes: the KJV’s italics and its translation errors really are sitting in the BoM, exactly as I said, and the proposed fix is to invent an additional translator to absorb the blame. A lot of members are going to read this sort of thing and conclude that if this is the best faithful scholarship can produce, there is no good explanation.
Question: was originalism ever a thing in the Mormon church? I mean Joseph Smith claimed to be a sort of originalist for what seemed a period. But at some point he became too love with his own power and just said claimed whatever he felt like as a revelation. The modern church has long just picked and chosen scriptures and hammered away at that circular peg into a square hole to make whatever they wanted to, to fit.
Of course I would say the same of constitutional originalists: agenda-driven libertarians/conservatives who cloak themselves in originalism (channeling special powers to communicate with the founding fathers) when convenient to aggressively push conservative positions down Americans’ throats and then discard originalism when inconvenient. Originalism of any sort is simply a way for phonies to seem authentic and principled.
President Oaks is literally on record as saying that scripture is not limited to what it meant when it was written but may also include what that scripture means to a reader today. Originalism is dead and buried (to the extent it ever existed). And we are definitely not textualists. If we were, based on the Book if Mormon’s teachings, we’d be trinitarians.
mountainclimber479,
I was showing how we can have empathy for a position (or the people who posit a certain position) without it being a circular argument–that’s all. And I would add that Moroni knows what he’s talking about–because we are typically required to be open in our minds and hearts to receiving wisdom from above before the Lord blesses us with it. And so we have to be careful that we don’t approach the BoM’s provenance solely with the cold instrumentality of science. Because if the powers of heaven are truly involved with the bringing forth of the BoM then we’ll never own that knowledge if we don’t soften our hearts towards the notion that the project may have been inspired.
My take on Stan Spencer’s article is a bit different. I think he was merely showing what he believes to be the simplest explanation for the changes to the italicized words–and I think he may be right. I’m not 100% sold on it yet–but I do like the straightforward explanation that he provides: that it was a sort ad hoc effort to make things read a little better–even when Joseph’s grammar skills were wanting.
Re: Prior Translator: I think he may have taken Royal Skousen’s claim–that the text came to Joseph Smith already prepared–a little too far. But he really doesn’t get into that aspect of the process very much–only enough to demonstrate how the “Missing Words Theory” works well with that claim–and he could be right. Where I might defer with Spencer’s theory is with the idea that the italicized words were edited out. I’m more in favor of the notion that they weren’t there to begin with.
That said, even if the text came to Joseph in a readable fashion–20 or so words at a time–his value as a “translator” is incalculable because of his gift of seership.
“Is this an example of the “deeply meaningful answers” that you say emerge once we grant the project was inspired?”
Now, mountainclimber, you’ve already shown that you’re quite good a steelmanning an argument. And my guess is that if you were to try to justify the presence of the plates you’d come up with some pretty-good explanations–but don’t feel obligated to do it as per this conversation. It’s just something to think about.
I’ve been slowing going through a history of the US constitution by a Harvard professor/historian. So far it has been really interesting. This interesting thing I learned about originalism is that it didn’t become a thing until the 1960s and 1970s. The reason being is that most of the text produced by the founders pontificating on things related to gov’t were just not widely available–and you can really only be originalist if you have access to all those early texts that elucidate the thoughts of the founders. Once those texts become widely available, only then did we see the popular rise of originalism. I personally find the concept of originalism to be a bit dated. Don’t get me wrong, they had important things to say and think about in their own time, but their thoughts on things should really only have weight so far as they help us address the problems and concerns we have today.
It is frankly impossible to be originalist in the LDS church or in any Christian faith. For us, we don’t have the gold plates. And JS kept evolving so even if we wanted originalism the next question would be, original to what time? We’d have to give up our biggest selling point–eternal families–depending on the time we pick.
As for other words the church tries to change, “preside” comes to mind.
Jack,
“And so we have to be careful that we don’t approach the BoM’s provenance solely with the cold instrumentality of science.”
In all seriousness why? Is it too much to ask for the process to make sense? Is it also too much to ask for the people it talks about to have at least some semblances of historicity since that is fundamental to the BoM even being useful? Praying to know it is true is only as useful as the events in the book being historical–as that is its fundamental claim. It cannot be another testament of Jesus if these people did not exist, which would mean Jesus never came to them. As much as people can find value out of the book, the underlying premise is still a lie if the ancient peoples mentioned never existed. And much like the Bible, I think it is a reason ask to have historical and archeological evidence to back that up–not the “parallels” garbage that Dan Peterson and his foundation deal in. It is quite sad really. The scholarship and text criticism around the Bible has been tremendously valuable. It has blown wide open this Bible world. It obviously hasn’t helped dogmatic evangelical belief systems (or ours for that matter), which is good because that means we can pitch bad belief and theology. Why is it we must special plead for the BoM?
Jack,
I am genuinely impressed that you continue to participate here and offer your perspective. But your last couple of posts illustrate either an extraordinary ability to deflect the question or an unwillingness to address it directly.
The issue Mountain Climber is raising is not about what the Book of Mormon says. It isn’t even about whether the book has inspired millions of people. The question is about the claims the LDS Church has historically made regarding its origin—specifically, how it was produced.
For most of the Church’s history, members were taught that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from the gold plates. The story of Martin Harris taking copied characters from the plates to Professor Anthon is even canonized, explicitly presented as evidence that the characters on the plates were genuine. Artistic depictions, lesson manuals, and Church narratives consistently portrayed Joseph seated at a table, separated by a curtain from the scribe, with the plates nearby as the source from which he was translating by divine means.
Now, however, the historical narrative has shifted. We are told that Joseph spent most, if not all, of the translation looking into a hat containing a seer stone. The plates were often covered, absent, or apparently unnecessary to the process. At the same time, the meaning of the word translation is being redefined to mean something closer to revelation.
Nobody is disputing that the Book of Mormon exists. It’s here. Nor am I denying that its contents have been profoundly meaningful in many people’s lives. But that isn’t the question.
The question is straightforward: if Joseph was receiving the text by revelation through a seer stone while looking into a hat, independent of the plates, then what was actually on the gold plates, and why were they necessary in the first place?
chrisdrobison:
“Why is it we must special plead for the BoM?”
We must do the same for the very existence of God–that is, if we’re relying on science alone.
I agree that some of the criticisms against the Book of Mormon’s provenance and historicity are valid. But there’s also a mountain of good evidence in favor of them. Even so, the BoM itself claims that the only way to know of its truthfulness is to ask God with an open heart and mind–and that’s typically the only way to know that God lives.
In regards to Brad’s comment, it seems to me that Joseph Smith strongly believed in the power of text to give authority to him and the church. For this reason, the Book of Mormon was presented as sourced from a literal written record and provided to the modern world as a book., with Joseph Smith being chosen to make the book available. The Book of Abraham was presented as sourced from a written record. The Book of Moses was presented as an improved translation / revelation of the Old Testament Genesis, which was understood to have sourced from written records. Lastly, the Doctrine & Covenants was presented as a text version of revelations received by Joseph Smith.
The importance of text and textual arguments carried over for many decades in the LDS church. The peak of LDS scholarship occurred when LDS officials granted access to historians to review the church archives – of historical texts – and from which to publish books of what was discovered.
Now it makes sense that great emphasis would be given to text when the only way to convey information to a diverse audience was via text. This all changed with the Internet and ultimately with the advent of perpetual streaming media. Streaming media is changing the world – it is changing how people communicate and how people learn and make sense of information.
In today’s world, fewer people rely on text to understand the meaning of arguments. This invites those with arguments to make to emphasize verbal persuasion and discount text. And not just current text but all text. It is extremely interesting that both Russell M. Nelson and Dallin H. Oaks – two old men who grew up in a world where books were the source of knowledge – steered the church away from relying on books and towards relying on men. They had their reasons for doing this, mainly that they strongly disagreed with the open scholarship era of the 1950s – 1990s church.
But placing trust in the persuasions of men is not a solid foundation! And this is one of the the predicaments of current LDS church. The church has embraced the digital world and relies on it to transmit its message. But the digital world is very competitive and the church message is very easily crowded out. Also, to stay competitive in the world of digital media, the church leadership may feel that it has to elevate those in the church who are charismatic and who can better make verbal / visual arguments. Doing this lessens the position of those who communicate with writing.
Joseph Smith was clear in his teaching that a written record was necessary to teach and hold the faith of generations. I suspect that in the coming years there will be an LDS president who will make this emphasis. Verbal communication is important for getting attention – for evangelizing. But text informs the mind and provides a more sure knowledge.
But maybe not. In which case we will have a great test: Can a religion prove durable if its foundation is verbal & visual and not text?
Todd S:
“If Joseph was receiving the text by revelation through a seer stone while looking into a hat, independent of the plates, then what was actually on the gold plates, and why were they necessary in the first place?”
I kinda left that ball in mountainclimber’s own private court–but if you want me to answer that question here, I will.
I think the first question to ask is: what would the Book of Mormon’s provenance look like without the plates? And in my view it would mean that the BoM would be purely a product of something that flowed through Joseph’s mind–without any connection to tangible artifacts. And, IMO, that would swing the door open too quickly to the idea of the whole thing being a product of his mind–sans revelation. And so the plates, the spectacles, the breastplate, and perhaps other items are the things that get stuck in our collective craw when we try to justify the process as something that’s coming from him alone.
I think the second question to ask is: what effect did the plates have on Joseph? And, IMO this question is just as important as the first–perhaps even more so. We have to remember that Joseph had the plates (and the other artifacts) in his possession for quite a while before he translated them. And it was during that time, in part at least, that he familiarized himself with not only the plates but the spectacles as well. You see, he wasn’t able to do the translation right of the bat–he had to grow into knowing how to utilize the seer stones for the Lord’s purposes rather than just the more mundane usages that he was already aware of. And more specifically, the presence of the plates helped him to focus his efforts on learning how to get a translation from them via those stones. My guess is that he spent a quit a bit of time pouring over the plates with the spectacles before he was ready to do a formal translation. And it was the fact of having those artifacts in his possession that gave him the pinpoint focus he needed to strengthen his gifts–at least to the degree that he could carry off the project acceptably well.
And third–and this is related to the first question: I think the story of the plates helps the reader to identify with the writers and peoples of the BoM as real people. And I think that makes all the difference with respect to the book’s witness of the Savior–because that witness becomes more than a platitudinal offering of things to think about. When it is real people sharing their witness of what they actually experienced it has greater power to lead the reader to faith–not to mention the believer to action.
More could be said–but those are the biggest reasons that come to mind right now.
I meant to say: little more than a platitudinal offering.
Jack,
“We must do the same for the very existence of God–that is, if we’re relying on science alone.”
Do we though? I believe God exists (because of personal experience), but I don’t special plead for him because I no longer come to the table with dogma and certainty. I no longer presuppose or pre-conclude Mormon doctrine with God. So God remains considerably more as a mystery than remotely any kind of certainty for me. I also know very well that science is a methodology for learning the goings on of the natural world and it is ill-suited anything it cannot observe and test. Special pleading is a choice and one I think is antithetical to faith.
“there’s also a mountain of good evidence in favor of them”
I don’t know why people keep saying this. There isn’t. Not even close. No DNA evidence, not archeological evidence, nothing. There is no reformed Egyptian anywhere. All we have is conjecture built upon parallels we squint and look sideways at to make it look like we have evidence. All we’ve successfully done is the erase the rich history of the indigenous people in the Americas by continuing this charade.
“BoM itself claims that the only way to know of its truthfulness is to ask God”
So? Why should we trust that claim? This whole “just pray about it” movement in the church has gotten more people in trouble and hurt than anything else. It has convinced people that honest, thorough, emotionless vetting is somehow lessor than feelings you get from an invisible force that is more often than not just your own biases surfacing yet being assigned divine importance. So many people have gotten hurt by this: COVID, Hoffman, dream mine, fake investments, etc. I’m not saying that people can’t be inspired via prayer once in a while, I’m saying that as a meanings of reliable truth discovery, it is actually quite bad.
@Jack,
This discussion started with you saying, “if we approach them [questions regarding the need for plates, why not use the stones now, KJV issues, etc.] the with idea that the project was inspired then what we get are deeply meaningful answers.”
You have now provided a sampling of some of these “deeply meaningful answers”:
1. BoM provenance is more credible due to the existence of plates. Well, that would certainly be true…if we had the plates sitting in the Church History Museum in downtown SLC. But we don’t, so the plates actually don’t do anything to establish BoM provenance at all. As it is, we have a small number of people in Joseph’s family and inner circle who provided highly questionable testimonies regarding the plates, which were conviently taken back by God. Is this one of those deeply meaningful answers?
2. A bunch of handwaving about how Joseph needed the plates, a physical object, at least initially, to perform the translation. This is pure apologetic speculation with zero evidence. If God is providing Joseph with a vision of the English words in the hat–as the Missing Words Hypothesis claims–then I see no need for plates whatsoever. How are the plates facilitating the vision? Answer: they aren’t. Is this one of those deeply meaningful answers?
3. The BoM’s bungling of much of the italicized parts of the biblical sections found in the BoM is because Joseph wasn’t translating–he was visioning and reciting a second translator’s English translation, but instead of just reading it aloud, he decided to smooth the rough language over himself. This is a very convoluted explanation. Note that removing the second translator–where the vision comes directly from God–doesn’t help (and is probably why the apologist insists on a second translator who isn’t God)–because if it’s God directly giving Joseph the vision, why not just give a godly, perfect English transcript to begin with? Is this one of those deeply meaningful answers?
My point is that Mormon apologetics for BoM origins/provenance do not provide deeply meaningful answers. There is not a “mountain of good evidence” in favor of the BoM’s origins. In fact, I’m not convinced that there is *any* good evidence in favor of its origins while there truly really is a mountain of good evidence against its historicity. These apologetic explanations are so complex and convoluted, and quite frankly, are the last nail in the coffin for many members searching for answers.
In light of the overwhelming evidence against BoM historicity, the Church has to decide whether to insist on historicity and lose the truth seekers who find all the information regarding BoM historicity online or to back off and allow for members to openly reject BoM historicity while still embracing Mormonism. It is possible that Soares’ comments regarding the BoM not being a work of translation, but instead a revelation, is just the beginning of the Church’s push to de-emphasize BoM historicity. It’s a very sensitive issue, which if done too quickly, could drive many orthodox members out of the Church, so perhaps this is a 50 year voyage that the Church has just began to embark on. The ultimate destination, I suppose, would be a Church where Moroni’s promise is that one can still find important truths in a book of fiction.
mountainclimber479,
As to your first point: the Book of Mormon’s claims cannot be divorced from Joseph’s claim that he translated it from a set of plates–though some will try to separate the two claims. We don’t have to have the plates on hand for that fact to work on our minds.
Second point: you’ve got to figure Joseph’s growth, not only as a human being, but as a seer as well. Richard Bushman, Don Bradley, and a host of other scholars would agree with me on this.
Third point: unlike the first two points–no this is not one of the meaningful answers that comes from trying to view the process as inspired. I’m not 100% sold on the theory–and I really don’t care that much about how all of that happened. One of the things I do like about it is how it highlights the hand of an unlearned man in the text.
Re: Apologetics: Let’s be careful that we don’t throw that baby out with the bathwater. Yes, some Latter-day saint scholarly work is purely apologetic–and I’m OK with that–but let’s be careful not to close the door on some really good groundbreaking work. We have to be careful not to reject the work being done by the real experts on the Book of Mormon–who tend to be faithful members of the church–because the rest academia hasn’t caught up with them yet.
Oh there’s a lot of evidence–we just have to be willing to categorize it as such. I’m not saying it’s proof positive–nor am I saying that there’ll ever enough objectively verifiable evidence to prove the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Not during my lifetime–but there’s evidence.
chrisdrobison,
“This whole “just pray about it” movement in the church has gotten more people in trouble and hurt than anything else.”
I agree that Latter-day saints can be a rather gullible lot at times. But I like to the think that rather than ceasing to pray–what we really need to do is mature in the faith. And I think what happens for those Latter-day Saints who sincerely try to become acquainted with the things of the spirit is that they learn over time to able to tell the difference between what comes from above and what doesn’t. I like how Neal A. Maxwell talks about the Holy Ghost helping us learn not only to recognize plain truth–but plain nonsense as well.
“I’m not saying that people can’t be inspired via prayer once in a while, I’m saying that as a meanings of reliable truth discovery, it is actually quite bad.”
I might agree with you if we’re talking about the natural world on it’s one without reference to spiritual things–though I do believe that the holy ghost has the power to reveal “the truth of all things” to us. But when we move towards talking about the things of the spirit–then pray is the only way to learn about those aspects of the Lord’s Kingdom that go beyond this world.
Someone else mentioned the changed definition of common consent, so that the term no longer has any meaning at all.
Have we also changed the definition of revelation so that revelation means agreement among the Q15 with no involvement from God?
And have we have changed the definition of doctrine so that it no longer has any meaning at all?
And are we changing the definition of discernment?
A few revisions from LDS leaders come to mind:
1. Tithing in the Bible says increase, LDS leaders re-interpreted that as W-2 wages. Reflects the Bible as adaptive meaning and evolving standard.
2. The word agency. When I was a kids, it was free. Now it’s moral. And either way it cannot be re-visited after you make a certain decision at the ripe old age of 8. And while some people think Satan’s plan was to take away agency, it’s also God’s plan when LDS want religious freedom to equate taking away the agency of people that don’t believe in the LDS way. Reflects words as adaptive meaning and evolving standard, or that we had the word wrong all along.
3. Forgiveness doesn’t apply to churches and their leaders because the word isn’t in the Bible. Plain text approach.
4. 20th century missionary work: lock your heart. 21th century missionary work: Saturday’s Warrior run amok. Reflects the white Bible as adaptive meaning and evolving standard. Same for missionary contact with their families.
If God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, then why change shaped?
Jack,
“Oh there’s a lot of evidence–we just have to be willing to categorize it as such”
Phrases like “be willing to categorize it as such” read more like “be willing to lower our standards” to me. I hope that isn’t what you mean. Can provide some concrete examples that hold to high evidentiary standards?
@Jack, again, here’s the conversation:
Anon: “Why plates if they weren’t used in translation? Why isn’t the seer stone used today? What about the KJV issues?”
Jack: “If we approach those questions with the idea that the project was inspired then what we get are deeply meaningful answers.”
Me: “OK, what are those ‘deeply meaningful answers’?”
Here are the deeply meaningful answers that you’ve provided:
1. Even though the plates weren’t used in translation, God gave them to Joseph to provide a believable story for people that encounter the BoM.
2. God provided the plates to Joseph as a sort of “translation training wheels”. Joseph wouldn’t have been able to translate, at least initially, without these physical objects.
3. You’ve deemed the KJV article to probably not fall into the “deeply meaningful answer” category, so we have no answers there.
I’m sorry, but I’m failing to find “deeply meaningful answers” here. #1 and #2 are merely unprovable apologetic speculations, not deeply meaningful answers. Joseph certainly never gave these explanations, nor are these official Church explanations. Even if they are correct, I don’t see how a faithful member would find them deeply meaningful?
“We have to be careful not to reject the work being done by the real experts on the Book of Mormon–who tend to be faithful members of the church–because the rest of academia hasn’t caught up with them yet.” It’s not just non-Mormon academia that hasn’t caught up. Neither has Church leadership. Neither have most faithful members. If there were something substantive there–it would spread pretty quickly throughout the Church. There isn’t, so it hasn’t.
“The Book of Mormon’s claims cannot be divorced from Joseph’s claim that he translated it from a set of plates–though some will try to separate the two claims.” Sure, that’s the orthodox position, and that’s why I said transitioning to a position where this point of view was acceptable would be a 50 year voyage. If Church history can teach us anything, though, it’s that the Church can shift literally any teaching or doctrine to meet the needs of the day. The Church maintained that the BoA was a translation for many years, until it was proven otherwise, so then it manufactured and embraced the “catalyst theory”. The catalyst theory would have been unthinkable 10 years before it was formulated, just as the idea of no plates is unthinkable to many orthodox members today. I’m sure that over the course of 50 years the Church can spin a tale where the plates still “make sense” yet weren’t really plates, or something along those lines. I can imagine The Interpreter printing all kinds of “scholarship” showing how the plates are real but weren’t really plates–or whatever it takes to support the Church’s desired position.
“You’ve got to figure Joseph’s growth, not only as a human being, but as a seer as well. Richard Bushman, Don Bradley, and a host of other scholars would agree with me on this.” This theory is unprovable speculation. The fact that it is in vogue with certain high profile apologists is not proof. I will note that this theory makes very little sense for people who promote Joseph seeing a text in vision–no training wheels required in this scenario. It makes more sense for those who promote theories where Joseph is receiving inspiration into his brain without seeing the words directly. In either case, it’s pure unprovable speculation, and there’s no reason to believe that God couldn’t have trained Joseph to translate the BoM without the plates.
chrisdrobison,
“Can provide some concrete examples that hold to high evidentiary standards?”
Here’s a list of ten items that I believe to be good evidence:
The rate at which the text was dictated.
The sheer number of chiastic structures in the book.
The profound beauty of many of those chiastic structures.
The strong presence of wisdom literature and apocryphal elements in the text.
The many names with Hebraic puns that have direct application to the situation at hand.
The profundity of sermons that were clearly beyond Joseph’s experience and ability to produce.
The sheer creative detail and genius of Jacob chapter 5.
The consistency of place names, directions, distances, and even elevations throughout its very long and complex narrative.
The development of general archaeological evidence over the last 200 years.
The convergence of several lines of evidence in the Arabian Peninsula that correspond to geographic markers in first Nephi.
Please remember that I’m not suggesting that any of these–or any number these–elements constitute proof. They are lines of evidence that point in the direction of the Book of Mormon being what it says it is.
The nature of God has been defined in many evolving ways by LDS leaders. In 1835, the Lectures on Faith described God the Father as “a personage of spirit” and the Son as “a personage of tabernacle,” language quite different from later Mormon teachings. By 1843, Joseph Smith was teaching that the Father and the Son were separate beings who each possessed tangible bodies of flesh and bone, and in the 1844 King Follett discourse, he taught that God had once experienced mortality and that human beings could eventually progress toward godhood. Then there was the Adam/God theory taught by Brigham Young. Later Church leaders organized these evolving ideas into the modern LDS doctrine of three separate divine beings united in purpose, embodied Heavenly Parents, a premortal spirit family, and the potential of faithful people to become like God. Thus, the Mormon conception of God gradually moved from language closer to traditional Christian monotheism toward a distinctive theology of an embodied, exalted Father within an eternal family of divine beings.
Jack,
I’ll be honest man, I don’t think your stands of “high evidentiary standards” and mine remotely match. This items are essentially reconstituted talking points used by evangelicals, but for the Bible. They just aren’t evidence. Here is what the BoM says it is in its own words:
“an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites…An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven”
Maybe at this point this is hijacking the conversation or maybe this is redefinition on full display, I just don’t know. The first 8 of those 10 things remind me of the people that confuse intelligent design for science. They are not evidence that the BoM is an ancient record. They are evidence JS was creative, could creatively plagiarize and produce psuedopigraphic text. Not sure how #9 is relevant as the more we discover, the less likely the BoM becomes real. As for #10, is this talking about Nahom–the place that we now know was a burgeoning metropolis of various people and not some shrine or rock in the middle of nowhere like Nephi says–oh and that also happens to be 150 miles away from Red sea which was supposedly, according to the text (borders of the Red Sea and all) where Lehi’s family was?
“Please remember that I’m not suggesting that any of these–or any number these–elements constitute proof.”
Jack, then you are not presenting evidence. I asked you for evidence. The definition of evidence is proof or sign of a fact. The fact in question: the BoM claims to be an ancient record from the very start–that is where it stands or falls, by its own admission. Rate of text dictation, opinions on beauty and textual genius or JS’s personal abilities DO NOT address historicity, period. Sure, God could stream a good story to JS that he could right down that teaches us something important–yes, that could happen. But, surely God would preface it with “this is parable” so as to not lead people down the wrong line of thinking. What you are doing and what all apologetics in the church are doing has no other recourse other than to redefine common definitions to make the accepted narrative even kind of work. You don’t think think we’d should throw out the baby with the bathwater. With apologetics I think we should do exactly that. They serve no purpose other than to deceive people into holding onto falsehood rather than engaging with reality. When you talk about the “experts of the Book of Mormon”, can that even be a thing without gold plates? How can someone pray to know the Book of Mormon is “true” when we can’t even pin down what “true” even means? If the only way we can make this work is to make our definitions fluid, it kind of baffles the mind that we are still so strict about gender binaries. Unfortunately, this is the bed we’ve chosen to sleep in and revisionism only seems to be making the problem worse, not better.
mountainclimber479,
Re: Deeply Meaningful Answers: One of the purposes of the plates is to help the reader identify with the record as a real artifact created by real people. And that means, among other things, that the witness of the Savior in the text is presented as a product of real encounters with him by those people. I don’t know that there is anything more meaningful than a real encounter with The Christ. And if that weren’t enough–the Book of Mormon goes on to show its readers how to have that experience for themselves.
That said, I fear that perhaps I’ve offended you in some way–because you seem a little on edge. If I have please forgive me–I’ll try to be more sensitive and aware.
chrisdrobison,
I think we’re in two different playing fields–not saying one is better than the other. But from my perspective evidence can be used in a sort of forensic process where it is accumulated until it conclusively points to a certain conclusion. That said, I could argue in behalf of the items I shared with you–but I think other things have to be addressed first. The most important is that we have to get as clear an understanding as possible from the historical record as to Joseph’s creative abilities with religious ideas. And I’m of the opinion that what little we have about that aspect of his person shows that he didn’t have nearly the capability to write the BoM himself. Contrary to Harold Bloom I don’t think that Joseph was that kind of genius–though I’m convinced that as time went on he may have become the most intelligent person to ever walk the earth–besides the Savior, of course, and perhaps one or two others.
Jack,
Any sort of forensic process demands empirical evidence. FYI, Richard Bushman was of the opinion that Joseph was extraordinarily gifted when it came to developing religious concepts. Why contradict the leading faithful historian on Joseph Smith’s abilities? Also, I have no idea how you can evaluate Joseph’s intelligence, especially when you are arguing that he didn’t create very much. What, exactly are his accomplishments according to you, which led you to make this extraordinary claim about his intelligence?
When someone makes such extraordinary claims with such surety without any shred of evidence, you have to start to wonder about everything else they say. Especially when they prevaricate, create their own definitions, and flat out change the goal posts a gazillion times and don’t even know they’re doing it. That’s the real warning sign. Jack, you’re hurting your cause, not helping it. And that you can’t see it is evidence alone that your evidence is shoddy as hell. You’re hanging yourself and your claims. You’re looking more and more lost, not more and more found. You display just about every symptom of a delusional mindset. Your defense of the truth looks like a cartoonist portrayal of schoolboy. You’re talking to people here who know everything you claim and probably beloved it once as much as you. And comments ike yours are one of the many reasons I lost my faith. I’ll say it again, you aren’t displaying a mature faith, but a vulnerable, terrified one. Is so pitiful (inducing pity) to see you flounder so much. It isn’t standing for the truth. It’s you being stuck in the mud and calling it a palace that no one but yourself can see. I dare say you’re insulting many a prophet with the claims and significance you’re attributing to petty things.
Dallin H. Oaks, 1995: “As a result, commentaries, if not used with great care, may illuminate the author’s chosen and correct meaning but close our eyes and restrict our horizons to other possible meanings. Sometimes those other, less obvious meanings can be the ones most valuable and useful to us as we seek to understand our own dispensation and to obtain answers to our own questions.”
Not a ringing endorsement of originalism.
Ascribing our preferred meaning to words is a pretty handy trick. Trump can read “Love your enemies” (although I doubt he’s ever cracked a Bible) and interpret it as “destroy anyone who disagrees with you”.
Anon:
“Richard Bushman was of the opinion that Joseph was extraordinarily gifted when it came to developing religious concepts.”
I think Bushman believes that Joseph grew into that kind of genius because of his experience with translating sacred texts and receiving revelations for the church and so forth. But I’m pretty sure he doesn’t believe that he had a special enate talent for such things as a young man.
“Any sort of forensic process demands empirical evidence.”
We have the text of the Book of Mormon. 🙂
Re: Joseph Smith’s Intelligence: I’m referring not only to what he picked along the way as a mortal being–but also to the vast knowledge of the heavens that he had gained by the time of his martyrdom.
Jack,
Yes, if there really were physical plates, then the BoM peoples were real, the BoM narrative is non-fiction, etc. I just wasn’t seeing how you were getting there from, “If we approach those questions with the idea that the project was inspired then what we get are deeply meaningful answers.” My problem with this, of course, is that the case for the existence of the physical plates is really weak. I don’t think there is any doubt that a dispassionate observer, if presented with the historical record, would conclude that there were no plates.
No, I’m not offended or on edge. I’m a pretty level headed person. That said, if you want to understand where I’m coming from, put yourself in my shoes for a bit. Many years ago, my belief system transitioned away from many of the beliefs of orthodox Mormonism. For family reasons, I have felt compelled to hide my faith transition from almost everyone and to attend meetings and hold callings. Week after week, I sit through Church meetings and attend activities where ideas I don’t agree with are presented as true and right. In order to avoid being ostracized, I just have to sit there and keep my mouth shut. I want to provide an alternative viewpoint, but I’m not free to do so. For me, W&T is a breath of fresh air. People discuss interesting questions here and actually share their real thoughts and feelings, instead of just regurgitating the party line.
It turns out that many of your comments on W&T are similar to the things I hear at my Church meetings (I’m not saying all of these are your beliefs, but they are real examples of things that are said in my local ward that I disagree with):
1. The SS teacher who presented questionable BoM apologetics and scholarship as fact all year long during BoM year.
2. The grandmother who has to speak out in favor of the Family Proclamation (and against LGBTQ people and/or women) at least once a month, whose time would be better spent learning to be more understanding of the plight of gay people in the Church, because she has a closeted gay grandson in the ward that she doesn’t know about yet (I know because used to be his YM’s leader).
3. The man who insists that there must have been a good reason for the priesthood/temple ban because the prophet can’t lead the Church astray.
4. The EQ teacher who insists that biblical scholars have it wrong when they say Job is a work of fiction because Joseph Fielding Smith said that Job must be real since Christ referenced Job in the NT.
5. The woman who says that the FP is correct in stating that women should stay home, but that Church leaders no longer speak out on it since so many women in the Church are too worldly these days.
6. The woman who makes a point of repeatedly telling everyone how important it is to faithfully wear our garments, even when garments are really quite off topic.
I don’t believe any of that stuff. In fact, I’m morally disgusted by some of it. And those are just the tip of the iceberg. I’d like to politely push back, but I can’t. Week after week after week. That’s my life.
So…when you make similar comments on W&T, it is hard for me not to push back. In a way, it’s therapeutic.
You, on the other hand, have the luxury of attending Church each week and largely hearing things you agree with. I do not. W&T is an outlet for me that helps keep me sane.
While it doesn’t really affect me personally much, one thing that I’ve noticed with your comments that might help is that they often come across as very condescending, even if that’s not your intention. You often lead with things like, “We need to remember that…” or “We have to be careful not to…”. If you’re going to write a comment from your very orthodox Mormon viewpoint that contrasts greatly with the other commenters, then you might want to lead with something like, “As you all know, I’m the resident orthodox member here, so my viewpoint is a little different from the rest of the group. Here’s how I see the issue…” You’re still going to get some pushback, but I think this approach would help because:
1. You’re making it very clear upfront that you’re an orthodox member of the Church, so people know that’s where you’re coming from. Part of the problem with your comments is that it’s not always obvious from the beginning that you’re presenting an orthodox viewpoint, and you aren’t going to have much room for changing your stance since you believe very strongly in prophetic infallibility. People enjoy engaging with each other hear, but it’s very frustrating to get many levels into a discussion to find out the person you’re discussing things with hasn’t disclosed that their viewpoint cannot be changed because they’re sticking with what the prophet has said no matter what.
2. You’re not leading with a command (“We need to do X…”) to tell people that they need to fix their thinking. You’re just sharing your orthodox viewpoint, and people can take it or leave it as they please.
There are other faithful commenters on here who don’t generate the negative feelings you tend to get sometimes. Yes, part of it is because they are more nuanced than you, but part of it is because they are just sharing their viewpoint and not telling other people what to think or do.
moutainclimber479,
Thanks for sharing a little bit about your life. I’m glad to learn more about you–even if it has do to with some of the more unpleasant things that you’re dealing with at the moment.
I crashed and burned a little over 20 years ago–and lost my faith to the point that it was hanging by a shoe string. I doubted the very existence of God–but over time I’ve been able to regrow my faith until now–and, well–you’ve gotten a good taste of my orthodoxy.
I appreciate the constructive criticism about my delivery. I honestly had no idea how those rhetoric elements were affecting you and others here. I’ll try to do better–though I have to confess that when it comes to writing I’m always shooting from the hip. I have practically no skills or talent–you’ve seen my horrid phrasing and punctuation. And truth be told–I don’t even know how to type. But the worst thing about writing (for me) is that it can be very psychologically painful. As I’ve said in other conversations: I have two great impediments to writing: first, I don’t know how to write, and second, I hate writing.
Thanks again. Take care, brother.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
Remember when John L Sorenson suggested that when the BoM refers to horses, it actually means deer or tapirs? For a good laugh, go look at a tapir in a zoo and imagine a Nephite riding one into battle.
Remember when Jasmin Rappleye suggested that when the BoM refers to a skin of blackness, it means dark clothing rather than human skin? Anything in the BoM can be explained away if the words mean whatever we want them to mean.
In a similar vein, it’s been fascinating to watch Jack in this thread retreat further and further from the word “evidence.” The goalposts have been dragged so far off the field, we’re in the parking lot.
Kirkstall:
“It’s been fascinating to watch Jack in this thread retreat further and further from the word ‘evidence.'”
I think it’s interesting that, for some folks, the evidence I presented was good enough to prove that Joseph Smith was a genius. In my mind that’s kind of like utilizing the same evidence to get both a geocentric and a heliocentric model of the solar system. And of course, as you know, I prefer Copernicus’ more expansive model of both the solar and the Book of Mormon.
“The development of general archaeological evidence over the last 200 years.”
How can you say this with a straight face? The idea that archaeological discoveries of the ancient Americas somehow confirm Joseph Smith is ludicrous in the extreme. These discoveries have shown just how much of a fraud Joseph Smith was. I challenge you to take a survey of archaeologists of the ancient Americas and ask them if they consider the Book of Mormon to be strong evidence, or really any evidence whatsoever, that Christianity and Judaism were practiced in the ancient Americas.
Brad D,
“I challenge you to take a survey of archaeologists of the ancient Americas and ask them if they consider the Book of Mormon to be strong evidence, or really any evidence whatsoever, that Christianity and Judaism were practiced in the ancient Americas.”
I agree that there are still some important elements that haven’t been found yet–and that may never be found. But even so, a lot of elements have been discovered since 1830 and continue to be discovered. And so I’m OK with giving it time.
To whom it may concern
If you comment 20+ times and people still have no clue what you are saying, maybe it’s time to stop talking. Toastmasters might help you learn how to more effectively communicate, and I think it’s free.
Or keep doing you.
I have no idea what prompted me to write this comment.
I agree with Chadwick. Jack’s endless, circular comments are increasingly repetitious and annoying, as well as downright stupid. “I have a testimony and I believe everything Church leaders and FAIR apologists say,” over and over and over again. Moderators, Jack either needs to be banned or limited to ONE comment per post. (I’ve been following W&T for over 5 years and he’s gotten much worse.)
Walter Lippman wrote a piece in 1939 titled “The Indispensable Opposition” which I think was profound then and possibly more so now. He argues that freedom of speech, opinion, and expression of ideas is far more than a “right”, it’s a necessity. For that reason, although, as a fellow human, I disagree with Jack, I also am in favor of keeping Wheat and Tares what many here despise about LDS orthodox spaces, freedom to speak, freedom to debate.
Lippman says the following: “It is all very well to say with Voltaire, “I wholly disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it,” but as a matter of fact most men will not defend to the death the rights of other men: if they disapprove sufficiently what other men say, they will somehow suppress those men if they can. And so, if we truly wish to understand why freedom is necessary in a civilized society, we must begin by realizing that, because freedom of discussion improves our own opinions, the liberties of other men are our own vital necessity.”
I enjoy the critical dialogue that is available here and want to refrain from silencing anyone. Let them speak and dig their own grave, but maybe also, in the free sharing of thought, I and we may all have our ideas held up to the light. I very well know many of my own ideas deserve to be critiqued.