DCP: Why I Can't Manage to Disbelieve

[_brade]

Exactly. And the more I read about the parade of Dee's 'failed' scryers, the more clear it is that this nonsense has been going on for long before Joseph Smith. The milieu that produced Smith was rich in visions, channeled texts, wildly pretentious communal and religious movements and a stew of colorful and often criminal personalities. His own charisma and gift for synthesis and improvisation sought to weld these elements into a new culture. To some degree he succeeded but we may learn even more from his failures.

Don't forget the rich tradition of writing in the Biblical style that was going on at the time. That anyone could look at the set of best historical evidence here and conclude the best explanation must expand our ontology to include kolobians, unaided levitation, teleportation, telepathy, re-animated humans, ordinary appearing rocks that receive and display text messages, and all the rest, is beyond me. Sure, relatively speaking, Mormonism is still a pretty small religion, as world-wide religions go, but as a religion born so late in human history, it's been taken far more seriously than it has any right to have been in an environment of enlightened thinking.

Lately I'm convinced that way too much effort has gone into dealing seriously with LDS claims and responding to apologetics. The claims are extraordinary. My opinion these days is just not to get pulled into discussions of Mormonism on its own terms using its own jargon. At bottom here we're talking about positive, serious claims about interstellar space aliens, with extraordinary powers, and all the rest. And I'd like the narrative about Mormonism to move toward that framework so that people can see just how bizarre the claims are. But not just bizarre, because certainly our best methods of discovery have revealed to us strange things about the universe. But, bizarre, extraordinary and poorly supported by the available evidence! The evidence being offered is not proportioned to the nature of the claims being made. The end. We don't need to be faffing about in history, responding to proposed travel plans of Lehi and his family, or trying to figure out whether Joseph had sex with any of his spiritual wives.

[_Maksutov]

Exactly. And the more I read about the parade of Dee's 'failed' scryers, the more clear it is that this nonsense has been going on for long before Joseph Smith. The milieu that produced Smith was rich in visions, channeled texts, wildly pretentious communal and religious movements and a stew of colorful and often criminal personalities. His own charisma and gift for synthesis and improvisation sought to weld these elements into a new culture. To some degree he succeeded but we may learn even more from his failures.

Don't forget the rich tradition of writing in the Biblical style that was going on at the time. That anyone could look at the set of best historical evidence here and conclude the best explanation must expand our ontology to include kolobians, unaided levitation, teleportation, telepathy, re-animated humans, ordinary appearing rocks that receive and display text messages, and all the rest, is beyond me. Sure, relatively speaking, Mormonism is still a pretty small religion, as world-wide religions go, but as a religion born so late in human history, it's been taken far more seriously than it has any right to have been in an environment of enlightened thinking.

Lately I'm convinced that way too much effort has gone into dealing seriously with LDS claims and responding to apologetics. The claims are extraordinary. My opinion these days is just not to get pulled into discussions of Mormonism on its own terms using its own jargon. At bottom here we're talking about positive, serious claims about interstellar space aliens, with extraordinary powers, and all the rest. And I'd like the narrative about Mormonism to move toward in that framework so that people can see just how bizarre the claims are. But not just bizarre, because certainly our best methods of discovery have revealed to us strange things about the universe. But, bizarre, extraordinary and poorly supported by the available evidence! The evidence being offered is not proportioned to the nature of the claims being made. The end. We don't need to be faffing about in history, responding to proposed travel plans of Lehi and his family, or trying to figure out whether Joseph had sex with any of his spiritual wives.

Excellent points, brade. I find that Joseph Smith was a member of a genus that spans countries, times, professions, let alone belief systems. What ties it all together is claims to paranormal powers and authority. The prophet window dressing is as much a distraction as anything on the magician's stage, something to calm squeamish Christians who wondered if this was other than of God.

Joseph began as a storyteller to his family and a "juggler" to others. That is, he was a sort of performance artist who impressed some people. Others quickly saw through him and formed negative opinions of him. He was the neighborhood fortuneteller and cunning man. He probably saw other people do similar things, within his own family and acquaintances, and when he tried it he showed a real gift for it. It grew from there. And if you think small pranks can't turn into large religious/philosophical movements, let me introduce you to the Fox sisters.

[_Kishkumen]

Lately I'm convinced that way too much effort has gone into dealing seriously with LDS claims and responding to apologetics. The claims are extraordinary. My opinion these days is just not to get pulled into discussions of Mormonism on its own terms using its own jargon. At bottom here we're talking about positive, serious claims about interstellar space aliens, with extraordinary powers, and all the rest. And I'd like the narrative about Mormonism to move toward that framework so that people can see just how bizarre the claims are. But not just bizarre, because certainly our best methods of discovery have revealed to us strange things about the universe. But, bizarre, extraordinary and poorly supported by the available evidence! The evidence being offered is not proportioned to the nature of the claims being made. The end. We don't need to be faffing about in history, responding to proposed travel plans of Lehi and his family, or trying to figure out whether Joseph had sex with any of his spiritual wives.

Well, yes, on one level the claims do not merit any serious discussion. As I have said a few times before, and Prof. Jenkins eloquently argued, there needs to be some serious evidentiary ground to the claim that the Book of Mormon is ancient before it can be the subject of serious argument. LDS apologists start from the position of asking others to disprove the Book of Mormon's antiquity, when the fact of its antiquity cannot be assumed. This is one of the unfortunate holdovers from Nibley's career--the idea that the mere claim to antiquity obligates others to treat it as such until proven otherwise. There is no such obligation.

Any one of us might make a dubious claim and demand that others treat it as a given until proven otherwise, but it would be foolish of others to adopt such a standard. If we were to translate this into the financial realm, the reasons would be immediately apparent. If I claim that I can consistently give you a 25% return on your investment, you had better be very skeptical about my claim, if you know what is good for you. You would be well advised to look for the evidence to back up this claim, and compare my claims and investment record against Ponzi schemers and trusted investors. If I refuse to back up my claim and demand that you prove I don't live up to it, you should walk away and report me to the appropriate authorities.

In short, the burden is always on the person who first forwards the claim, not those who are being invited to accept it. Joseph Smith made claims about visions, translations, revelations, etc. It was his job to back up his claims, and that obligation transfers to all others who accept the claim and seek to persuade others of its truth. Those of us who do not believe his claims have no obligation to prove them false. They are almost self-evidently false, for anyone who is willing to open their eyes to the many evidences of fraud.

[_Physics Guy]

What are apologists actually trying to do, though? Apologetics has always been a mixture of offense and defense. On the one hand apologists try to persuade skeptics, but on the other hand they try to reassure believers.

I have a hard time believing that Mormon apologists are seriously trying to persuade skeptics. I mean, if they are, then good luck to them with that.

But Mormonism has always been attacked by skeptics. Lately a lot of the skeptics seem to be ex-Mormons who want to save others from beliefs that they themselves now regret. Some of them are even former Mormon apologists. Current Mormon apologists seem to be speaking to believing Mormons who want to stay that way. They offer reassurance that the skeptical criticisms are insufficient to compel disbelief. So they assume that Mormonism starts with a case that skeptics must answer, because that's what their audience assumes.

I don't think one can really blame the apologists for the assumptions of their audience, and I think it's unfair to accuse them of failing to achieve something they weren't trying to do (persuade skeptics). It might be worthwhile to point this issue of starting assumptions out loudly, though. I can't imagine that many Mormons have any idea how unbelievable their story sounds to non-Mormons. I mean, it may be a fact that Mormons think their stuff's reasonable, but they shouldn't imagine that anybody else will.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

What are apologists actually trying to do, though? Apologetics has always been a mixture of offense and defense. On the one hand apologists try to persuade skeptics, but on the other hand they try to reassure believers.

I have a hard time believing that Mormon apologists are seriously trying to persuade skeptics. I mean, if they are, then good luck to them with that.

But Mormonism has always been attacked by skeptics. Lately a lot of the skeptics seem to be ex-Mormons who want to save others from beliefs that they themselves now regret. Some of them are even former Mormon apologists. Current Mormon apologists seem to be speaking to believing Mormons who want to stay that way. They offer reassurance that the skeptical criticisms are insufficient to compel disbelief. So they assume that Mormonism starts with a case that skeptics must answer, because that's what their audience assumes.

I don't think one can really blame the apologists for the assumptions of their audience, and I think it's unfair to accuse them of failing to achieve something they weren't trying to do (persuade skeptics). It might be worthwhile to point this issue of starting assumptions out loudly, though. I can't imagine that many Mormons have any idea how unbelievable their story sounds to non-Mormons. I mean, it may be a fact that Mormons think their stuff's reasonable, but they shouldn't imagine that anybody else will.

Well, as observed by Jenkinsgate you can see what happens when an apologist engages a skeptic on a scholarly level. It's absolutely devastating to the Book of Mormon's truth claims, and it makes Mormons look buffoonish.

Right now, their best course of action is sticking to their built-in audience of the faithful simply to reassure them. The key is to inoculate the faithful's narrative from contrarian evidence (we call it reality). If they can give them enough to sate any desire to investigate claims further then they've succeeded. That's the key. Just give them something that seems plausible, keeps them in the boat, and to stop asking questions.

- Doc