In an excellent tome, which has been criticized far too much for an inaccurate quotation of Irenaeus, LDS scholar Stephen E. Robinson wrote:
It is not my purpose in these pages to prove, or even to argue, that the LDS church is true or that its doctrines are correct, even though I believe both of those propositions. Rather, I will attempt to show why the arguments used to exclude Latter-day Saints from the “Christian” world are flawed. The operating principle behind most of my arguments will not be rectitude but equity—what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That is, if Augustine or Luther or John Paul II can express opinions or insist on beliefs that differ from the Christian mainstream and yet still be considered Christians, then Joseph Smith and Brigham Young cannot be disqualified from bearing that title when they express the same or similar opinions. If theological or ecclesiastical diversity can be tolerated among mainstream Christian churches without charges of their being “non-Christian,” then diversity of a similar kind, or to a similar degree, ought to be tolerated in the Latter-day Saints. This is simply an issue of playing on a level field. (Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1991), p. viii.)
In my conversations with those critical of LDS beliefs I have come to the realization that Professor Robinson’s approach is really the Achilles heel of most detractors. Philosophically it is quite sound, for it is logically fallacious to accept an idea or criticism when applied to an opponent’s argument but reject it when applied to one’s own argument. Yet more to the point the clear demonstration of a double-standard demonstrates a fundamental weakness within arguments meant to undermine the faith of the Saints.
In an article which was part of a festschrift in honor of C.S. Lewis, Austin Farrer wrote of the need for rational argument:
It is commonly said that if rational argument is so seldom the cause of conviction, philosophical apologists must largely be wasting their shot. The premise is true, but the conclusion does not follow. For though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish. (Austin Farrer, “The Christians Apologist,” in Jocelyn Gibb, ed., Light on C.S. Lewis [New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1976], p. 26.)
Many will recognize this quotation as it has been quoted with approval by such individuals as the late Elder Neal A. Maxwell. However, fewer will be familiar with the following from the same article:
The strictly apologetic technique is that of controversial argument; and it is no doubt essential to the apologist’s success that he should enter the controversial lists with credit, and make a brave show in the exchange of buffets. Orthodoxy must be made out as argumentatively sound as any other position; but it may seldom be argument that casts the decisive weight. It may more commonly be a direct presentation, allowing the vitality of orthodox ideas to be felt.” (Ibid., p. 25.)
Here, Farrer asserts that “Orthodoxy must be made out as argumentatively sound as any other position.” In other words, it must measure up to the same standards as “any other position.” But interestingly, “it may seldom be argument that casts the decisive weight. It may more commonly be a direct presentation, allowing the vitality of orthodox ideas to be felt.”
It has been my experience that “direct presentation” is indeed far more vital than “rational argument.” It is in direct presentation that the “vitality of’ any idea is “felt” including the tenants of the restored Gospel. We do not in our missionary lessons argue investigators into acceptance of the restored Gospel but rather through “direct presentation” allow “the vitality of… ideas to be felt.” And “felt” is a key word. I may be placing more emphasis upon the concept and the implications of that particular term than Farrer might have but the impressions of the Spirit to the heart and mind are indeed “felt.”
Why is all of this material to the concept of equity? The critic fails to provide a viable alternative when their approach is merely to impugn, without due consideration for how they may be undermining the vitality of their own position, the beliefs of others. They fail to consider that for the Latter-day Saints what is indeed “sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.” If a particular criticism aimed at the Book of Mormon can be equitably applied to the Bible with similar result, what is left? This of course provides no challenge for the atheist but since the majority of LDS critics who would deny us to designation “Christian” do indeed accept the Bible, usually as sufficient and inerrant, it does tend to result in rather the opposite of what they may intend.
It is not enough to demonstrate with this or that argument that the Book of Mormon is false if such an argument can be equitably applied to the Bible to the same effect. If one dismisses both one is left with neither. Yet when the special pleading of our critics is rejected and the standards they espouse applied equitably they cry foul and accuse us of attacking the Bible. But for the Latter-day Saints it is just as impious to impugn the Book of Mormon as it is to impugn the Bible; we consider both “scripture” (Article of Faith 1:8).
Attempting to poison the well or to arguing to personal interest these critics seek to preclude further discussion of these equitably applied objections as they are either unprepared to discuss them or unwilling to accept the consequences resulting from their application. But, to place a more common face on these fallacies, tying up ones opponent through vilifying them in the eyes of others and/or preaching to the choir only results in maintaining the status quo, in retention or boundary management, not in convincing anyone not already predisposed to accept your position.
Thus equity becomes the Achilles heel of most critics, leading them to either abandon logic and resort to fallacies of irrelevance, to admitting that they do indeed have similar if not identical skeletons in their own closet, or to arguing that the concept cannot indeed be equitably applied. At least the latter leaves room for discussion and demonstrates an open mind.
All of this is not to say that there are no rational answers for criticisms leveled against the restored Gospel but rather to state that equity is a useful tool in answering such criticisms. If FAIR is a testament to anything, it is that LDS Christianity can indeed “be made out as argumentatively sound as any other position.”
LDS apologists should have no problem besting fundamentalist Protestant apologists saddled with the indefensible proposition of an inerrant, God-breathed Bible.
The argument from “equity” (excellently summarized above) runs onto rougher ground against a non-inerrantist position, which entertains the notion that even though Scripture contains the fingerprints of inspired but fallible men, who did their best to express and record the revelation to which they were witness, the underlying revelation shines through their record despite its veneer of fallible human content. Thus, Catholic and mainline Protestant commentators are able to maneuver around problematic Biblical texts by arguing that (for example) the Law revealed to Moses contained a central core of divine truth, that unfortunately got encrusted with tribal cultural notions justifying slavery and genocide.
It’s arguably a little harder for Mormon scripture to be interpreted this way, because it’s declared to have been translated or revealed by the direct agency of God, who (it can be argued) would not have seemed to endorse an insertion by Joseph of non-divine content. However, although that argument seems rational, it can’t be safely assumed with certainty; even the Book of Mormon itself contains the qualification “if there be mistakes, they are the mistakes of men.” God may have his own, unknown purposes in allowing “mistakes” to be perpetuated in even a directly-revealed text; or maybe there’s simply no way to avoid it.
Then again, the cultural influence of mainline Protestant commentators is pretty much nil, so we don’t have to worry about them. Beating up on the evangelicals is the only real task at hand, and it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
I’m not sure how you consider the “non-inerrantist” position to be rougher ground. They have just as much trouble as the inerrantists in saying that the LDS church *cannot* have access to revelation. Unless they have access to revelation (which none that I know of make a claim to), they would have no way of knowing with a surety.
Since neither group of critics knows for a fact that the LDS church does not have access to revelation, they are forced to argue that they *probably* do not have access to it. I disagree with the idea that Mormon scripture cannot have flaws, especially after translation to other languages. To argue that case while believing the Bible does have flaws would be a double standard of epic proportions. To argue that the Bible we read today is completely unflawed is also a very difficult position. You would need to make the argument that God supervised every translation to ensure not even the slightest modicum of incorrect interpretation made its way in. Not what I would call an easy position.
We’re speaking specifically about the “argument from equity.” What Matt is talking about is answering an attack on the accuracy of the Book of Mormon with a counterargument that the Bible subject to similar attacks. But a liberal Christian would respond to this response with the equivalent of a “yeah, so?” He admits the Bible contains inaccuracies; they don’t bother him. If he criticizes the Book of Mormon for its alleged inaccuracies, it’s because he believes he’s justified in holding the Book of Mormon to a higher standard of accuracy than that to which he holds the Bible, reasoning that a translation accomplished by the miraculous intervention of God should be expected to display a higher standard of accuracy than a translation accomplished by merely human scholarly effort.
Is such a liberal-Christian critic’s reasoning flawed? Isn’t he using the exact same assumptions as do Latter-day Saints, in expecting revelation to be more trustworthy than the “arm of flesh”?
Yet strange that “a translation accomplished by the miraculous intervention of God should” note “faults” and “mistakes of men.” That the alleged authors should write of “imperfections” for which they should not be condemned. What possible purpose could God have in providing a “translation accomplished by the miraculous intervention of God” which could be subject to such mortal foibles?
One of these authors elaborates, “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.”
It has been my experience that the Book of Mormon is precisely what it claims to be down to and including the nitty-gritty day-to-day foibles and fallacies of the average human being. It speaks to mortals as it was written by mortals who overcame, who through the grace of Christ became better than they were and who assist us, through the recitation of there sometimes all too human failings to “learn to be more wise than [they] have been.”
The “liberal-Christian critic” is indeed flawed as his reasoning stems from a faulty assumption which has yet to be proved, i.e. that a “translation accomplished by the miraculous intervention of God should be expected to display a higher standard of accuracy than a translation accomplished by merely human scholarly effort.” God appears to have His reasons for providing a translation which results in quite a comparable product even given His “miraculous intervention.”
Matt,
“Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation. Therefore, its testimony of the Master is clear, undiluted, and full of power.”
(President Ezra Taft Benson, “The Keystone of Our Religion”, Ensign, January 1992.)
Was President Benson laboring under “a faulty assumption which has yet to be proved”?
Now, God works in mysterious ways. I *suppose* God, for some inscrutable purpose, could allow *some* imperfection into a miraculously-translated text. That’s actually consistent with my perception that God limits his interventions in history, the better to preserve the integrity of the testing process by which we learn whether we will choose to live the truth without being compelled to it.
So I really have no problem with the original Book of Mormon text reflecting the unconventional grammar of frontier America, or even more significant issues like the expurgation of most of the original manuscript’s classical Trinitarian passages. I can chalk that up to the translation process’s requiring Joseph to exercise his own mind (as Oliver evidently thought was unnecessary), and the resulting influence of Joseph’s limited understanding.
On the other hand, I have a much harder time with the Book of Mormon perpetuating myths like the Flood and the Tower of Babel. If the whole earth really wasn’t flooded, why on earth would the Lord allow a miraculously-achieved translation to perpetuate the original author’s error (which Mormon, of course, not being a modern geologist, would have had no reason to suspect)? I don’t like to think of God playing tricks on us. Would it be too much to ask for a bleedin’ *footnote*, even?
I think the phrase about the mistakes of men doesn’t refer to mistakes in translation (Lehi isn’t talking about that subject). He is talking about mistakes in doctrinal teachings or historical records. Since all the scriptures (OT, NT, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, D&C) teach the same doctrine and history of Adam and Eve, the flood, the tower of Babel, they are witnesses of each other about what the true doctrine/history is. How could all of them get it wrong? Unless the prophets/writers of the OT/Pearl of Great Price were wrong and the people in the NT and Book of Mormon just wrongly believed the OT.
Ah, but isn’t the question “Was President Benson laboring under ‘a faulty assumption which has yet to be proved’?” rather loaded? Is President Benson’s statement a statement of fact, a conclusion reached through review of the incontrovertible evidence demonstrating corruption of the Biblical text; or is it merely a statement of faith, couched in a firm conviction that the Book of Mormon is accurately describing the textual history of the Bible?
I would think it the latter as the claims of the Book of Mormon can neither be proven nor disproven due to a simple lack of evidence. The tampering, the removal of the “plain and precious,” is an event which pre-dates any extant biblical manuscript and therefore is impossible to confirm or refute. However, there is good evidence that what was once considered scripture is not longer considered such (for instance, the Shepherd of Hermas or Enoch) and there is good evidence that competative factions within early Christianity saw no harm in altering texts (oddly, the Bible itself confirms that such was occuring in an oft quoted anti-Mormon passage, Revelation 22:18-19). There is once again “atmosphere in which belief may flourish.”
You seem to have little objection to God allowing the “mistakes of men” to find their way into the text but balk at the possibility that God might allow reference to the flood or the Tower of Babel, both considered by some to be allegorical or an expansion upon a localized event. Aside from the fact that our knowledge of the past is limited at best and that such events could indeed have occured, would not erroneous misconceptions about the past fall within the perview of the “mistakes of men?” If God’s purpose is truly to relay to us, inasmuch as it is possible, an accurate and comprehesible account of an ancient society could it not include misconceptions of the past?
Of course, I do not necessarily think that the question of a global versus a localized flood has been answered nor that the existence or non-existence of the Tower of Babel has been established. What we know and do not know is subject to the fickle and ever expanding understanding of the world around us and is even more tenuous in regards to a world which is chrologically moving out of our present focus and thus blurring a little more on a daily basis.
I would think it would be a telltale sign that the text was a fabrication if indeed God did remove such alleged misconceptions from the text. Perhaps in our modern day and age we might be awed into veneration if a text were to present what we consider the present state of knowledge in relation to the past but it would also demonstrate a serious inconsistency in the record. The Lehites took with them the Brass plates, which contained the Biblical accounts of such events as the flood or the Tower. They accepted the reality of these events on faith and taught such to their children. Even the rebellious Laman and Lemuel were quelled through reference to the Exodus. If indeed their society failed to convey such events and to perpetuate their acceptance than the alleged origin of the people and the text which they authored in a world which accepted such a reality would be suspect at best. What you see as evidence against the text I see as evidence for it.
“Ah, but isn’t the question “Was President Benson laboring under ‘a faulty assumption which has yet to be proved’?” rather loaded?”
Double-shotted with an extra powder bag. Guilty as charged. 🙂
The point is that the notion that the Book of Mormon should be expected to be more accurate than the Bible — specifically because its miraculous translation mechanism was free from the fallible hands of all those scribbling monks — is a common Mormon notion, endorsed by a prophet himself. On the other hand, prophets’ theories about Book of Mormon geography can be dismissed as running from their imperfect understandings, so why not their Conference talks about the Book of Mormon translation process, I suppose. At this point, we’re just haggling about the price.
“Of course, I do not necessarily think that the question of a global versus a localized flood has been answered nor that the existence or non-existence of the Tower of Babel has been established. What we know and do not know is subject to the fickle and ever expanding understanding of the world around us and is even more tenuous in regards to a world which is chrologically moving out of our present focus and thus blurring a little more on a daily basis.”
Maybe, and maybe, and maybe, creeps in its petty pace from day to day. And all our maybes have lighted the way to dusty death. Look, do Mormon apologists really want to become nihilists? Because that’s where this tendency is headed. In an effort to insulate the Book of Mormon from rational challenge, there is a tendency among many apologists to affect a radical skepticism about virtually all of reality. You’re coming full circle to meet up with a bunch of postmodern relativists (“there is no absolute truth”) by the back gate, except you’ve thrown one fewer objective reality under the bus than they.
All I know is that I for darn sure don’t want somebody who thinks the existence of a global flood is a reasonable possibility, doing the geotechnical analysis for the construction of my house. Maybe it’s technically possible that a global flood could have occurred as described in Genesis — but at some point, the evidence is so overwhelming that any philosophical uncertainty that technically remains can be disregarded as irrelevant.
We hang men, or ruin them or deprive them of their children, based on the uncertain conclusions of reason. I see no ground for special pleading in the case of religion; if I can vote to hang a man because I’m satisfied by rational evidence that hedunnit, I can’t turn around and reject similar evidence because it leads to religious discomfort. There *is* an absolute truth — or something close enough to it for government work — and it’s our job to do our best to find and harness it.
“I would think it would be a telltale sign that the text was a fabrication if indeed God did remove such alleged misconceptions from the text. Perhaps in our modern day and age we might be awed into veneration if a text were to present what we consider the present state of knowledge in relation to the past but it would also demonstrate a serious inconsistency in the record.”
So Helaman 12:15 (in which the Nephites discovered heliocentric astronomy a millennium and a half before Copernicus) “demonstrates a serious inconsistency in the record”?
Information about the flood:
http://www.biblemysteries.com/library/blacksea.htm