BKP was right-some truths are just not useful!

[_Dr Exiled]

By drawing the analogy to a smart phone, is Brad not advocating for the hard translation theory of the Book of Mormon? If words appeared on the rock, then there should have been no room for Joseph Smith to insert so much contemporary material.

Hi Dr Moore,
You're new here. You may be interested in this thread from a while back.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=51468

As is often the case critics seem to look at things with a binary and/or black and white perspective. A fundamentalist view. That has always been a pet peeve of mine as I read much of what the critics have to say. What's actually kind of fun/challenging is looking for alternate explanations other than the same ol' same ol' somewhat repetitive regurgitations of stuff that's been around since the first years of the restoration.

You may also be interested in reading in depth some of Blake Ostler's works.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... N01_68.pdf

https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchiv ... on-theory/

http://blakeostler.com/docs/criticexpansionth.pdf

Ultimately, scriptural fundamentalism is untenable and fails to account for what Judeo-Christians accept as scripture in general and for the Book of Mormon in particular.
http://blakeostler.com/docs/criticexpansionth.pdf

Regards,
MG

The Book of Mormon is clearly a product of the 19th century. This has been shown in the thread you cited hereinabove as well as in numerous other threads on this site that I have read. Try as you may to minimalize the critics' success in dismantling apologists' arguments, the fact of the matter remains, it is a 19th century product.

Exactly how are the critics binary? Is it because they come to the obvious conclusion and don't indulge in silly possibilities? Aren't criminals sometimes clearly guilty?

[_Dr Moore]

Hi MG,

Thanks for the links. I've read a bit of Ostler already, and read over the other thread just now.

I recognize that not everything has a simple answer, but in my experience the simplest answers are usually the right ones. Not always, but usually.

It is a veiled personal attack to label as fundamentalist, those who resolve contradictions by resorting to the simplest answers first. Is it not more fundamentalist to hang on to an asserted foundational conclusion in the face of mounting evidence against that conclusion?

Adding complexity almost always makes things worse -- in relationships, in business, in science. And... yes, also in religion and spirituality.

God is love.
Love thy neighbor.
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

This is, in my view, 99% of the realized goodness of the scriptures. It can be expressed in less than 20 words. Simple. Black and white! But fundamentalist? No way. Not a single religion on earth can claim ownership of those truths.

It is fallible humans, attempting to interpret everything else in scripture, which adds complexity, creates fundamentalism, and inflicts needless emotional harm in the process.

Enjoyable as it can be to identify the Triple Lindy version of events, I do not see the point in doing so. What good comes from solving for the theoretical possibility of a global optimum, such as (1) the fewest number of deceptions told by Joseph Smith (2) the most miraculous interpretation of events as recounted by Joseph Smith (3) persistent authority to act with God's blessing by leaders who contradict themselves and each other over time?

[_Dan Vogel]

The link is from exmormon reddit and has a short video of Brad Wilcox a religion professor at the Lord's univerisity showing how he explains the Joseph Smith rock in the hat translation process and uses an Iphone analogy.

Stick around and read the comments and you will surely laugh your *ss off,especially where one commentor ask rhetorically, So where is the on/off switch on the seer stone.

If this video gets lots of coverage, the Richard Bushman advice that the church must change its "founding narrative" can't possibly work.

Enjoy but hold on to your chair and do not be imbibing as you watch!

These apologists say this stuff like it makes so much sense, but really doesn't when you actually think about it. This is the kind of thing you might expect from a seminary teacher but not from a religion professor at a University.

The analogy of the iphone doesn't work when Joseph Smith was indoors the whole time while translating the Book of Mormon. Does the stone actually work, or is it just a focal point to project images created in the mind? If the latter, then how could the glare of a shinny surface effect it?

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi MG,

Thanks for the links. I've read a bit of Ostler already, and read over the other thread just now.

I recognize that not everything has a simple answer, but in my experience the simplest answers are usually the right ones. Not always, but usually.

But how can you be so sure?

"The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest. The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be ``Seek simplicity and distrust it.'' - Alfred North Whitehead
https://scienceblogs.com/developinginte ... ory-is-alm

It is a veiled personal attack to label as fundamentalist, those who resolve contradictions by resorting to the simplest answers first.

See above.

Is it not more fundamentalist to hang on to an asserted foundational conclusion in the face of mounting evidence against that conclusion?

Not necessarily.

Occam's Razor is actually a vestigial remnant of medieval science. It is literally a historical artifact: William of Ockham employed this principle in his own 13th century work on divine omnipotence and other topics "resistant" to scientific methods. The continuing use of parsimony in modern science is an atavistic practice equivalent to a cardiologist resorting to bloodletting when heart medication doesn't work.
https://scienceblogs.com/developinginte ... ory-is-alm

Mounting evidence can work both ways. Thus, complexity , or the lack of of one simple answer, does become a factor in reaching conclusions and/or making hypothesise.

Adding complexity almost always makes things worse -- in relationships, in business, in science. And... yes, also in religion and spirituality.

The complexity is already there. Ignoring it is the problem.

God is love.
Love thy neighbor.
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day:

BE GOOD
BE KIND

Indeed, at life's core these words along with the three scriptural maxims you've chosen to use strike at the core of what being human is all about when it comes to day to day living.

This is, in my view, 99% of the realized goodness of the scriptures. It can be expressed in less than 20 words. Simple. Black and white! But fundamentalist? No way. Not a single religion on earth can claim ownership of those truths.

True. Although when it comes to the nature of God and our relationship to Him and His expectations of us things become a bit more muddy, yes? Treatises and books have been written.

It is fallible humans, attempting to interpret everything else in scripture, which adds complexity, creates fundamentalism, and inflicts needless emotional harm in the process.

Agreed. I think the only way this could possibly be straightened out would be information from the source of all being. Complexity does lose its edge when that happens, if indeed it does/has. But even then (assuming God has revealed Himself through the Restoration), we are left with having to deal with complexities of Book of Mormon translation, what it means to be a prophet, what is doctrine vs. myth, etc., etc. It seems as though God, amidst the simplicity, leaves a great deal of complexity for us to deal with. Some would say that the details don't matter. I would say that they do. Nature of God, necessity of ordinances, etc.

Enjoyable as it can be to identify the Triple Lindy version of events, I do not see the point in doing so.

That may be rather short sighted.

What good comes from solving for the theoretical possibility of a global optimum, such as (1) the fewest number of deceptions told by Joseph Smith (2) the most miraculous interpretation of events as recounted by Joseph Smith (3) persistent authority to act with God's blessing by leaders who contradict themselves and each other over time?

A better understanding and possible resolution to the complexities that are part and parcel of something as complex as pruning a very large vineyard over a LONG period of time?

Regards,
MG

[_Philo Sofee]

On binary thinking, Mormonism is far more guilty of it than its critics.
Wasn't it Hinckley who said Mormonism is either true or its not? Didn't McConkie say seer stones are either of the Devil or God?

In what sense is Hinckley and McConkie Nuanced beyond a literal binary thinking? Is Mormonism for the most part true? Is it almost a restoration but not quite? Is it mostly a restoration?

Seems to me the binary claim against critics is truly out in force with the apologetics and teachings of Mormonism itself...
I mean, did the First Vision happen or not? That's pretty binary.

Is the Book of Mormon a record of ancient Nephites or not?
Did Nephi exist or not? etc., etc.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Irony alert. Speaking of bIn4Ry tHiNKinG:

Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?

Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?

Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?

Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

Do you live the law of chastity?

Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?

Are you a full-tithe payer?

Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?

Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children?

If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

If you have previously received your temple endowment:

1) Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?

2) Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?

Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?

Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

Not a lot of room for, uh, complexity.

- Doc

[_Equality]

Irony alert. Speaking of bIn4Ry tHiNKinG:

Do you haveHow does your faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost manifest itself in your daily life?

Do you have aHow would you describe your testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer to someone who is unfamiliar with the gospel?

Do you have aWhat does your testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days mean to you?

Do youWhat does it mean to you to sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

Do you What does it mean to you to sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?

Do you What does it mean to you tosustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

Do you liveWhat does living the law of chastity mean to you, and how has it blessed your life?

Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the ChurchJesus?

Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Do Describe how, in your daily life, you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel.

In what ways are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?

Are youWhat does being a full-tithe payer mean to you?

Do your What doeskeep[ing] the Word of Wisdom mean to you?

Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children?

If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

If you have previously received your temple endowment:

1) How do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?

2) Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?

Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?

Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances? Why or why not?

Not a lot of room for, uh, complexity.

- Doc

Exactly. If the church wanted to discourage binary thinking and encourage a more nuanced and complex view of things, they could do so easily by changing the questions to something like the way I edited the above.

[_mentalgymnast]

Not a lot of room for, uh, complexity.

- Doc

As I said earlier:

It seems as though God, amidst the simplicity, leaves a great deal of complexity for us to deal with.

But you're right. The commandments and expectations for obedience/belief are not to be quibbled over to the point that they are then considered to be unnecessary and/or relics from a bygone era steeped in mythology and a misunderstanding of 'things as they really are'.

That is, from the perspective of humanists/secularists.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Does the stone actually work, or is it just a focal point to project images created in the mind?

If it was a focal point that provided a means to see images in which 'mind' was involved then the stone 'worked'. I don't see these two alternatives as being mutually exclusive. Sort of a false dichotomy isn't it?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Here's one comment I enjoyed:

"He put the rock in the hat so others couldn’t see it. No words would appear on the rock and the hat provided cover for his con."

Now that that's been pointed out, I also wonder: If God could make words appear on a seer stone, why not skip the whole seer stone business and just have the words appear on the golden plates themselves?

Would that make you a believer?

Regards,
MG