Ask a Mormon, Part 4

[Agent327]

Sure, but it's hard to give an answer beyond "it was a spiritual experience."

I can relate to that.

Except for the Book of Mormon itself . . . granted, that doesn't prove much, but saying that no historically verifiable records of a person who lived around 1600 years ago in a not-well-understood part of the world doesn't prove all that much either.

I know the Book of Mormon records it. I meant that there are no official records of these prophets. Putting it politely, it borders on the unbelievable.

Presumably, Mary would have bothered to identify herself to Joan of Arc, and to the people at Lourde, Fatima, and Guadalupe. I mean, there are a lot of people I don't recognize by sight, but if they told me their name I would know who they are.

Hm. So Mary told Joan (in French obviously, using the local dialect) that she was Mary, Mother of God. And the message was that Joan should liberate Christian France from the equally Christian English. We are again entering into the realm of the highly improbable. Possibly Mary was speaking Aramaic and Joan caught a garbled message. That might be one explanation.

If you are making a written record that has to last for thousands of years, and has to be written on, thin gold sheets seem to be practical. It's no more mystifying than someone making up the idea of a book made of gold.

Yet the Bible was originally not written at all. And when it was, paper scrolls were used. I am inclined to say this Joseph was a very imaginative man.

And they wouldn't have materialized and then dematerialized; they were buried in a hillside, then used for translation, then handed back over to the possession of an angel. No aspect of that seems less possible to me than the existence of an angel in the first place, so why focus on that part of it?

I see. How did these golden plates get hidden in a hillside? And what exactly needed translation? (I am thinking of Mary taking to Joan here.)

They would be in the same situation as Moroni, yes - see what I said above; they were hardly taking censuses in 90 BCE.

Nor around 1 AD. The first empire wide census was organized by a later emperor. There would have been local censuses though, for tax collecting purposes. So Moroni was an ancient prophet from around 90 BCE. Why was Moroni not known as such contemporarily? It seems he has remained an unknown ancient prophet for over 1,900 years.

Well, I am not sure exactly WHAT you are doing. I am trying to explain what Mormons believe, and why they believe it, and you keep saying that such a story has specific elements in it that are impossible to believe. I mean, I get that you don't believe Joseph Smith's account of the origin of the Book of Mormon; most people who aren't Mormon, don't. But you need to understand, you haven't really given a good reason for me to find the story unbelievable, in the sense that it couldn't be believed. So I will keep explaining what we believe and why we believe it, and there's not much more I can do to respond to you.

I am not sure what Jehovah's Witnesses have to do with anything; I don't recall mentioning them.

I've met a few, that's why. I was using it as an example that it is not my intention to convince you of anything. I'm just asking questions. I don't think I said anything was impossible to believe (few things are), just that they strike me as highly improbable. That should not discourage anyone from believing such events.

As to your religious experience: I've had one myself. But I'm not encouraged to divulge on it. It would border on the unbelievable.

 

[Borachio]

Why would it border on the unbelievable? If you've had some kind of subjective experience, and you tell me that experience, what grounds do I have for disbelieving you?

Why don't you tell me, and we'll see if I believe you. I can easily believe that your recollection of a subjective experience is as accurate as anything else, can't I?

Sure, but it's hard to give an answer beyond "it was a spiritual experience."

How so? What was the nature of this spiritual experience? Was it a sense of some presence or other? Did something happen to you? What was it that happened to you?

Surely there must be more to it than "it was a spiritual experience". What makes you say "it was a spiritual experience"? How do spiritual experiences differ from everyday "normal" experiences?

You're really saying nothing here. And I can't even begin to make a guess at what you're referring to.

It's really strange that possibly the most significant thing that ever happened to you should provoke such a lack of description.

 

[Plotinus]

I know the Book of Mormon records it. I meant that there are no official records of these prophets. Putting it politely, it borders on the unbelievable.

I do think you're being a bit harsh here. What kind of "official" records would there be of people from antiquity? We don't have "official records" of Honi the Circle Drawer or John the Baptist or Rabbi Hillel or indeed Jesus of Nazareth. All of these people are known exclusively or almost exclusively from the later writings of people who venerated them. And this is entirely reasonable, given that these are the kind of people who tend not to get mentioned by people who aren't their followers. The same goes for all of the Jewish prophets of the Hebrew Bible; they're not mentioned in other sources because no-one cared.

Hm. So Mary told Joan (in French obviously, using the local dialect) that she was Mary, Mother of God. And the message was that Joan should liberate Christian France from the equally Christian English. We are again entering into the realm of the highly improbable. Possibly Mary was speaking Aramaic and Joan caught a garbled message. That might be one explanation.

I don't see why this is improbable either. If Mary appeared to Joan of Arc, it was a miracle. If miracles were happening, then anything's possible. Joan might have been given a miraculous ability to recognise Mary. Mary might have been transfigured and able to make her identity immediately recognisable in a miraculous way. She might have spoken any language or communicated non-linguistically. The mere fact that the English were Christian needn't mean that God couldn't want them to be defeated; God's desires in a war don't have to be determined solely by what religion the combatants profess.

More broadly, it seems to me that if one accepts an interventionist God, the possibility of miracles, the existence of angelic beings, and the like, one might quibble about what actions these entities would wish to perform but I don't see how one can about whether they can perform these actions.

 

[warpus]

There are several branches of Mormonism; although the mainstream LDS Church accounts for like 95% of the total membership of all of them, there are some that are significant, like the Community of Christ, formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has several thousand members; then there is the FLDS, one of several groups that still practices polygamy. Most of those religions don't see themselves as spinoffs, of course. They claim to be the true successors to the church that Joseph Smith founded, just as we do. I suppose from a historical basis we have the strongest claim, but in matters of faith history only goes so far.

Thanks for your answer, but it's not quite what I was after. Mind you at the time of asking the question I was in a bit of a different mood and state of mind than I am now, so maybe I can frame the question a bit .. better this time around.

Mormonism accepts that there might be future prophets, right? They come and go, every once in a while, and make pronouncements that they get from God? I'm not sure how common such a thing is, but let's say that Mark the prophet starts saying some pretty near-blasphemous stuff, that he claims comes from God. Given that the church seems to accept the emergence of prophets, how would it deal with Mark? Would he be denounced or does it depend? Would he only be listened to if he was the leader? (You guys have a leader I believe)

I guess what I want to know is if it's possible that Mark continues to preach his near-blasphemous stuff, gaining followers.. followers who pay credence to the old testament, new testament, book of mormon, but now also the book of Mark, or whatever Mark the prophet would call it. Then 50 years later you have a bona fide religion centered around Mark's teachings, that also has the other 3 books as holy books that are read and revered.

Is that possible or would Mark be shunned from the community as a false prophet? And I'm guessing if he was your leader, then instead of a religion splitting in two, Mormonism would just take on a new path and re-align itself with the new teachings.

There's a lot of guessing on my part here, so please correct whatever I got wrong. Maybe I'm completely wrong about you guys accepting future prophets. Other religions really don't, I don't think. If there was a Bob the prophet who claimed to talk to Jesus, not many other non-Mormon Christians would take him seriously. Right? Maybe I'm wrong about that too...

 

[luiz]

More broadly, it seems to me that if one accepts an interventionist God, the possibility of miracles, the existence of angelic beings, and the like, one might quibble about what actions these entities would wish to perform but I don't see how one can about whether they can perform these actions.

Indeed, if one gives up logic and the demand for evidence, anything is possible!

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Thanks for your answer, but it's not quite what I was after. Mind you at the time of asking the question I was in a bit of a different mood and state of mind than I am now, so maybe I can frame the question a bit .. better this time around.

Mormonism accepts that there might be future prophets, right? They come and go, every once in a while, and make pronouncements that they get from God? I'm not sure how common such a thing is, but let's say that Mark the prophet starts saying some pretty near-blasphemous stuff, that he claims comes from God. Given that the church seems to accept the emergence of prophets, how would it deal with Mark? Would he be denounced or does it depend? Would he only be listened to if he was the leader? (You guys have a leader I believe)

I guess what I want to know is if it's possible that Mark continues to preach his near-blasphemous stuff, gaining followers.. followers who pay credence to the old testament, new testament, book of mormon, but now also the book of Mark, or whatever Mark the prophet would call it. Then 50 years later you have a bona fide religion centered around Mark's teachings, that also has the other 3 books as holy books that are read and revered.

Is that possible or would Mark be shunned from the community as a false prophet? And I'm guessing if he was your leader, then instead of a religion splitting in two, Mormonism would just take on a new path and re-align itself with the new teachings.

There's a lot of guessing on my part here, so please correct whatever I got wrong. Maybe I'm completely wrong about you guys accepting future prophets. Other religions really don't, I don't think. If there was a Bob the prophet who claimed to talk to Jesus, not many other non-Mormon Christians would take him seriously. Right? Maybe I'm wrong about that too...

Well, the short version is, Joseph Smith was called to be a prophet. His successor are also prophets, but there is a specific order to how one becomes the leader of the church. If some member says that they have received revelation that contradicts current church teaching, they are essentially guilty of heresy and stand a good chance of being excommunicated. Now, if they then go and start their own church . . . that's their own call.

basically, only the president of the church is viewed as authorized by God to receive revelation pertaining to the whole church. Members can receive revelation pertaining to them, or to people over whom they have stewardship (like the leader of a congregation), but claiming that you are authorized by God to take the Church in a whole new direction - whatever that is, and however valid your claims are, it's not consistent with LDS doctrine.

 

[warpus]

Very interesting, thanks.

If some member says that they have received revelation that contradicts current church teaching, they are essentially guilty of heresy and stand a good chance of being excommunicated.

Seems that if you are someone who receives instructions and/or other information from God, then you can find yourself in quite a pickle if your revelations contradict church teachings. But then I suppose that's true for almost any religion.

 

[Agent327]

I do think you're being a bit harsh here. What kind of "official" records would there be of people from antiquity? We don't have "official records" of Honi the Circle Drawer or John the Baptist or Rabbi Hillel or indeed Jesus of Nazareth. All of these people are known exclusively or almost exclusively from the later writings of people who venerated them. And this is entirely reasonable, given that these are the kind of people who tend not to get mentioned by people who aren't their followers. The same goes for all of the Jewish prophets of the Hebrew Bible; they're not mentioned in other sources because no-one cared.

My knowledge of Mormonism is rudimentary. I did not know the prophets were supposed to be from antiquity. That said, why are there no records of these ancient prophets from antiquity? I don't think 'later writings' includes writings referring back to people 1,900 years ago with no reference between their activity (prophet indicating some kind of religious activity) and their sudden reappearance 1,900 years later from the hereafter.

I don't see why this is improbable either. If Mary appeared to Joan of Arc, it was a miracle. If miracles were happening, then anything's possible. Joan might have been given a miraculous ability to recognize Mary. Mary might have been transfigured and able to make her identity immediately recognizable in a miraculous way. She might have spoken any language or communicated non-linguistically. The mere fact that the English were Christian needn't mean that God couldn't want them to be defeated; God's desires in a war don't have to be determined solely by what religion the combatants profess.

More broadly, it seems to me that if one accepts an interventionist God, the possibility of miracles, the existence of angelic beings, and the like, one might quibble about what actions these entities would wish to perform but I don't see how one can about whether they can perform these actions.

I'm not quite sure what you are criticizing or arguing. I think we can safely assume Joan of Arc had a vision. Whether that is a miracle or not, is more of a matter to religious authorities who need to judge such things. As far as I know, visions are a fairly regular occurrence in the religious sphere. At any rate, I was using the Mary appearance as an analogy as it seems to be the closest thing comparable to Joseph's Smith's revelations. That might not be entirely accurate, as religion founders often appear to have visions (sometimes with dictations involved, such as with Muhammad).

I personally do not believe in a God for which anything is possible. Primarily because, if that were the case, there would be quite a few more miracles than currently are/have been reported. There may indeed be, but these miracles will then be interpreted by the ones experiencing them according to their specific religious background. (I.e. miracles aren't something exclusive to Christianity solely.)

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

My knowledge of Mormonism is rudimentary. I did not know the prophets were supposed to be from antiquity. That said, why are there no records of these ancient prophets from antiquity? I don't think 'later writings' includes writings referring back to people 1,900 years ago with no reference between their activity (prophet indicating some kind of religious activity) and their sudden reappearance 1,900 years later from the hereafter.

According to the Book of Mormon, they lived not only thousands of years ago, but also in the Americas (somewhere.) We do not have extensive historical knowledge of that time and place.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Seems that if you are someone who receives instructions and/or other information from God, then you can find yourself in quite a pickle if your revelations contradict church teachings. But then I suppose that's true for almost any religion.

If that happens to someone - either they are wrong, or their religion is wrong (or both!) and they will need to decide what to believe.

 

[Agent327]

According to the Book of Mormon, they lived not only thousands of years ago, but also in the Americas (somewhere.) We do not have extensive historical knowledge of that time and place.

I see. I think it's fair to say that 1,900 years ago (or longer even?) there were neither Jews nor Christians in the Americas. For one, the entire continent was unknown to the Old world. Does this not seem a wee bit beyond the improbable to you?

 

[Plotinus]

I personally do not believe in a God for which anything is possible. Primarily because, if that were the case, there would be quite a few more miracles than currently are/have been reported. There may indeed be, but these miracles will then be interpreted by the ones experiencing them according to their specific religious background. (I.e. miracles aren't something exclusive to Christianity solely.)

Neither do I, but then that's the basis of your issue here - not the specifics about whether a given supposed revelation, such as that to Smith, is true or not, but the more general issue of whether a God who can grant such revelation exists in the first place. So I think getting caught up on the details of how one might tell whether an apparent revelation was veridical or not is to miss the major question, which is whether you think belief in God in the first place is reasonable or not. But that's a question which goes beyond Mormonism.

 

[timtofly]

I see. I think it's fair to say that 1,900 years ago (or longer even?) there were neither Jews nor Christians in the Americas. For one, the entire continent was unknown to the Old world. Does this not seem a wee bit beyond the improbable to you?

Native Americans were not a separate people group that evolved on their own. They have roots in the same place every one else did. Being in communication with God is not a religion. The religion forms as the society around such communication changes.

 

[svknoe]

Why did the 19th century man Smith "translate" the book into 16th century English?

[...] then nothing He may or may not do can really be called "implausible,"

If we accept this, how can we hope to distinguish false claims from correct ones?

What do you think of the phrase: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?

 

[warpus]

If that happens to someone - either they are wrong, or their religion is wrong (or both!) and they will need to decide what to believe.

That's pretty much what happened to Joseph Smith, and he decided to listen to God (or rather the angel I guess) rather than his religion. And as a result now we have Mormonism.

Or do I not have that right?

I guess what I was after is knowing how flexible your religion is in terms of accepting new contradictory visions from future prophets, given all of the above. I thought maybe the Mormon church would be more open to future events like that.

 

[Borachio]

^ You're joking, surely!

The more a belief is based on recent "revelation" the less likely it is to accept new "revelation". (At least that's how I'd intuit it working. These things are all too often counterintuitive, so my intuition tells me to take the opposite position.)

It's the same with immigrants: the most recent ones are the least inclined to accept new immigrants.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Why did the 19th century man Smith "translate" the book into 16th century English?

Because it was the language that he, and those in the society in which he lived, recognized as the language of scripture. Generally, when people translate things, whether by their own knowledge or whatever, they have some control over what the translated text sounds like, so it isn't really all that strange.

(In my opinion, the Book of Mormon reads differently from the King James Bible anyways, but that fact - even if it is true - could have any number of causes.)

If we accept this, how can we hope to distinguish false claims from correct ones?

What do you think of the phrase: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?

You may recall, this whole conversation started because someone asked me how the story of the Book of Mormon could be plausible. My answer was that that's a meaningless word, in this case, because the necessary preconditions for the Book of Mormon being true are extraordinary enough on their own.

Certainly, I understand the concept of skepticism. Remember, I am not arguing (here or elsewhere) that the Book of Mormon MUST be true; just that it could be. The default position to take, that it isn't really what it claims to be, is certainly a reasonable one. It's the one I would hold, if not for having specific reasons to believe it.

That's pretty much what happened to Joseph Smith, and he decided to listen to God (or rather the angel I guess) rather than his religion. And as a result now we have Mormonism.

Or do I not have that right?

Sure, you would have that right; if your own spiritual experiences or whatever led you to conclude that something else is the truth, then more power to you. If someone who is LDS has a vision that contradicts LDS teaching, I won't call them evil for following it; but at that point, what they believe can't really be called Mormonism.

I guess what I was after is knowing how flexible your religion is in terms of accepting new contradictory visions from future prophets, given all of the above. I thought maybe the Mormon church would be more open to future events like that.

^ You're joking, surely!

The more a belief is based on recent "revelation" the less likely it is to accept new "revelation". (At least that's how I'd intuit it working. These things are all too often counterintuitive, so my intuition tells me to take the opposite position.)

Well, the reasoning is this: the true church of Jesus Christ had ceased to exist - Christianity, in the generations following Christ, lost both the ability to receive revelation (for the church as a whole) and priesthood authority. When Joseph Smith was called as a prophet, he restored revelation and priesthood authority. What he did was more or less a one time event, because once the church was restored, it was restored. His successors receive revelation as he did; and of course everyone, inside and outside the church, can receive direction from God pertaining to their own lives; but one person being chosen to bring back the truth was something that could only happen once, as it only needed to happen once.

In terms of "contradictory revelations from future prophets" - the president of the church can receive revelations that lead to new practices, or new ways of looking at things, that are different from what Joseph Smith taught; but only the president of the church can.

 

[Agent327]

Native Americans were not a separate people group that evolved on their own. They have roots in the same place every one else did. Being in communication with God is not a religion. The religion forms as the society around such communication changes.

Evolving and developing religious concepts are two entirely different things. As far as is known, Native Americans had no concept of God as we understand it. They did have what we might call a supreme deity, but this did not develop in the direction of monotheism as the Abrahamic religions did. Anyway, the point was that there was no contact between the Old World and the New as far as religious concepts are concerned until 1492. Secondly, there is nothing known of the concept of prophets in the New World. Or rather, the concept of a prophet was - as far as we know - unknown. And yet, a 19th century person by the name of Smith claimed not only to have contacted by a prophet from 1,900 years earlier, but to have been handed gold plates, which then afterwards disappeared. Now, one may call that a miracle, but the most likely explanation it is not.

Because it was the language that he, and those in the society in which he lived, recognized as the language of scripture. Generally, when people translate things, whether by their own knowledge or whatever, they have some control over what the translated text sounds like, so it isn't really all that strange.

(In my opinion, the Book of Mormon reads differently from the King James Bible anyways, but that fact - even if it is true - could have any number of causes.)

Interestingly, the language of scripture was of course neither English nor 16th century English. Possibly Mormoni forgot to mention this on his revelation to Joseph Smith. But the more interesting question is obviously: translated from what original language?

You may recall, this whole conversation started because someone asked me how the story of the Book of Mormon could be plausible. My answer was that that's a meaningless word, in this case, because the necessary preconditions for the Book of Mormon being true are extraordinary enough on their own.

So, you are saying that the extraordinary preconditions of the Book of Mormon precludes any question of probability? Seeing as 'extraordinary preconditions' already assumes likelihood of veracity, this comes rather close to being a circular argument.

Personally I'm more interested in the question what ancient prophets were doing in the Americas. And how did they get there? Or, did God by mistake contact people who had no knowledge of Judaism or Christianity? Or, assuming God being perfect, maybe it was planned? Either way, this Joseph Smith sounds like a very special man.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Interestingly, the language of scripture was of course neither English nor 16th century English. Possibly Mormoni forgot to mention this on his revelation to Joseph Smith. But the more interesting question is obviously: translated from what original language?

All of this is explained by the Book of Mormon itself - Mormon and Moroni and all of the people mentioned in the Book of Mormon were descended from a group of Israelites who had been led by God to the Americas.

The plates were written in a writing system that had been more or less invented for that purpose, combining the Hebrew language with an Egyptian script.

So, you are saying that the extraordinary preconditions of the Book of Mormon precludes any question of probability? Seeing as 'extraordinary preconditions' already assumes likelihood of veracity, this comes rather close to being a circular argument.

Well, what I am saying is that if you are unable to accept the preconditions (that God exists, has the power of creation, and intervenes in human affairs), then the existence of the Book of Mormon presents no special difficulties. That is not the same thing as whether it is true or not, but we seem not to be discussing whether it is true, but whether it is even possible.

Personally I'm more interested in the question what ancient prophets were doing in the Americas. And how did they get there? Or, did God by mistake contact people who had no knowledge of Judaism or Christianity? Or, assuming God being perfect, maybe it was planned? Either way, this Joseph Smith sounds like a very special man.

As I said, all of these questions are explained by the claims the Book of Mormon makes about itself. In 600 BCE, a prophet in Jerusalem was commanded by God to take his family and leave the city; they ended up in the New World; the Book of Mormon is an account of them and their descendants.

 

[timtofly]

Evolving and developing religious concepts are two entirely different things. As far as is known, Native Americans had no concept of God as we understand it. They did have what we might call a supreme deity, but this did not develop in the direction of monotheism as the Abrahamic religions did. Anyway, the point was that there was no contact between the Old World and the New as far as religious concepts are concerned until 1492. Secondly, there is nothing known of the concept of prophets in the New World. Or rather, the concept of a prophet was - as far as we know - unknown. And yet, a 19th century person by the name of Smith claimed not only to have contacted by a prophet from 1,900 years earlier, but to have been handed gold plates, which then afterwards disappeared. Now, one may call that a miracle, but the most likely explanation it is not.

That is the thing with religions though, they carry on the social mores of the people practicing them. To modern Christians, God has been relegated to the "man upstairs". That is not in the Bible and just because the dogma of a religion declares something, does not make it the truth. It is just words that make sense to the changing social pressure around any religion, or the ability of the religion to retain any form of it's original intent. There is not much difference in Western and Eastern views of God seeing as how God is an unknown spiritual being. The fact that the western formula of the Trinity gave God the title of Father does not change that. It does bend the reality of God, into something that it is not. God is not the "old man upstairs". Now I don't think that is wrong for some humans to embrace that, as long as it does not take away from what God actually is. I am not sure that any one person can claim they understand God and concepts are just human attempts at doing so.

For all we know, Hinduism and Buddhism could have been influenced by Abrahamic "believers", and changed just like Mohamed and Joseph Smith changed the direction of accepted norms. The only religion technically that can be before Abraham would be those following in the Zoroastrian tradition. Religion as we know it today, started in and around the Persia and India region more than likely from influence of Abrahamic and Zoroaster (Noah) followers. They are going to have their own personal "leader" that they can relate with, and try to distance themselves from other sects, not to mention how such beliefs intersect with the current social structures while they are developing. Personally I don't relate to the term Abrahamic, because there was no religion not even Judaism that practices the beliefs and teachings of Abraham. If anything Judaism could be influenced by Zoroaster just like Hinduism and Buddhism could have been influenced in a similar way.