A reason for faith by Laura Hales

[Reuben]

Because Joseph Smith never claimed that he could not be deceived, his mistaken belief that the Kinderhook plates were genuine does not detract from his prophetic claims.

This is wonderful. We can apply Joseph's same "mistaken belief" to the golden plates also, right? And the Book of Abraham? And... And... And...

Ah, the tired old "What else could they have been wrong about?" argument. This is nothing new.

Seriously, though, the statement is wrong, and I love your reduction of it to absurdity.

Being wrong about the Kinderhook plates, while not proving that he was wrong about other things, is strong evidence that he was wrong about other things - especially similar things such as the Book of Abraham. A Bayesian statistician would say that a belief update is in order.

My faith transition in a nutshell: too many belief updates that reduced the probability of the church's truth claims. Most apologists don't want you to think like that, but would rather you focus on the possibility of the church's truth claims. That's where ridiculous statements like "his mistaken belief that the Kinderhook plates were genuine does not detract from his prophetic claims" come from.

[Emower]

Because Joseph Smith never claimed that he could not be deceived, his mistaken belief that the Kinderhook plates were genuine does not detract from his prophetic claims.

This is wonderful. We can apply Joseph's same "mistaken belief" to the golden plates also, right? And the Book of Abraham? And... And... And...

Agreed. While I liked the tone of the chapter and the argument was fair and evenhanded, one thing that has to be off limits for the purposes of this argument is what that view means for other things. I disagree that it doesn't detract from other prophetic claims. I in fact believe that it informs and explains the various problems with other texts.

[Emower]

A Bayesian statistician would say that a belief update is in order.

My faith transition in a nutshell: too many belief updates that reduced the probability of the church's truth claims. Most apologists don't want you to think like that, but would rather you focus on the possibility of the church's truth claims. That's where ridiculous statements like "his mistaken belief that the Kinderhook plates were genuine does not detract from his prophetic claims" come from.

I have never thought of this in a Bayesian context. I really like that thought!

[GoodBoy]

This book sounds like the well-used:

"I know that it can be super hard to believe this stuff, and that some of it doesn't make any sense. So, what you should do is... "

"Just believe!!!"

"See! Easy! You just weren't thinking right. I'm glad we cleared that up."

[consiglieri]

I would rather be in a boat free to sail the open seas exploring all that the world has to offer than on some boat anchored in some small bathtub of a harbor being exposed to the same old stale stagnate water that the Mormon Church floats in.

"Twenty years from now, you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than those you did. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from safe harbor. Catch the wind in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."

— Mark Twain

[consiglieri]

Just saw this thread, Emower.

You sure have done a lot of excellent work in reading and analyzing the different chapters.

The thought I am left with is a pretty simple one.

Would the LDS Church need such a book if it were true?