The Non-Imperative for a historical Book of Mormon

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Yes, I have a half smile on me when you have the inclusion of  "notions and fantasies"..Nuf said.

Enough said to convey your aggressive and sneering unbelief, if that’s what you mean. 

Edited February 24, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I'm not saying there are none, but what other sacred texts or books with historical figures, people, nations, languages, anthropology, are there out there which have no official geography for where the events took place?  From what I understand from the most recent announcement by the church they took a step away from historicity by saying no geographical model works for us.  

Here is an example from Elder Ted Brewerton from his talk in general conference in 1995.

"Many migratory groups came to the Americas, but none was as important as the three mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The blood of these people flows in the veins of the Blackfoot and the Blood Indians of Alberta, Canada; in the Navajo and the Apache of the American Southwest; the Inca of western South America; the Aztec of Mexico; the Maya of Guatemala; and in other native American groups in the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific islands."

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/the-book-of-mormon-a-sacred-ancient-record?lang=eng

If we create a scatter plot on a map of the americas all temple dedicatory prayers which include phrases related to the children of Lehi what will we find?  A geography model I would expect. 

Merida Mexico - July 2000
https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/merida-mexico-temple/dedicatory-prayer/
short generic, no mention of book of mormon, lehi, or lamanites
Villahermosa Mexico - May 2000
"May Thy eternal purposes concerning the sons and daughters of Lehi be realized in this sacred house. "
Tuxtla Gutierrez - Mar 2000
"We invoke Thy blessings upon this nation of Mexico where so many of the sons and daughters of Father Lehi dwell. Bless these Thy children. Lift them out of the depths of poverty."
Veracruz -july 2000
short generic, no mention of book of mormon, lehi, or lamanites
Oaxaca Mexico - Mar 2000 Faust
short generic, no mention of book of mormon, lehi, or lamanites
Quetzaltenango Guatemala - Dec 2011
"Thou kind and gracious Father, our hearts are filled with gratitude for Thy remembrance of the sons and daughters of Lehi. Thou hast heard their cries and seen their tears. Thou hast accepted their righteous sacrifices."
Guatemala City - Dec 1984
"Thou kind and gracious Father, our hearts swell with gratitude for Thy remembrance of the sons and daughters of Lehi, the many generations of our fathers and mothers who suffered so greatly and who walked for so long in darkness. Thou hast heard their cries and seen their tears. Now there will be opened to them the gates of salvation and eternal life."
"We thank Thee, O God, for lifting the scales of darkness which for generations clouded the vision of the descendants of Lehi. "
Tegucigalpa Honduras- Jun 2006
"Our hearts are filled with gratitude for Thy blessing of the sons and daughters of Lehi. Thou hast heard their cries and seen their tears. Thou hast accepted their righteous sacrifices."
 

When did the Church announce that “no geographic model works for us”? Precise wording and citation, please. 

[cdowis]

On 2/22/2019 at 10:17 AM, hope_for_things said:

He's not even attempting any sense of objectivity.  This kind of apologetics is poorly done and a throw back to the less rigorous and hard nosed style of the past.  I expect that it will actually do more harm for Stephen's cause than good.  

Let's do a thought experiment.

Quote

Jesus saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

hope_lr_things responds: But Jesus.......he's not even attempting any sense of objectivity.  Investigation, experimentation, gathering and evaluation of data.  Nothing but  just  subjective feelings.  

We appreciate Peter's passion, but that is an extraordinary claim, which requires  extraordinary proof, such as peer reviewed published articles of  experiments,  intensive examination of sources and historical records, chemical analysis of the water which "changed" into wine,  etc etc. 

Witnesses?  Well you now how unreliable they can be.

There are sources which tell us he learned magic while in Egypt, that his actual  father was actually a Roman soldier, a deserter.  Were you actually born in Bethlehem?  We do not see any records to confirm this;   I expect that it will actually do great harm.

Perhaps in a hundred years the scientists and theologians  can give some sort of  tenative conclusion.

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by cdowis

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, blueglass said:

From what I understand from the most recent announcement by the church they took a step away from historicity by saying no geographical model works for us.  

Saying we don't know for sure where it took place is not the same as taking a step back from historicity.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 2/24/2019 at 12:14 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

When did the Church announce that “no geographic model works for us”? Precise wording and citation, please. 

Bumping for bluegrass. 

Incidentally, a limited geography model for the Book of Mormon events in no way precludes Lehi’s descendants from eventually ending up throughout the Americas, if you meant to imply the contrary in your post. 

[cdowis]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Bumping for bluegrass. 

Incidentally, a limited geography model for the Book of Mormon events in no way precludes Lehi’s descendants from eventually ending up throughout the Americas, if you meant to imply the contrary in your post. 

he BOM refers to the land northward -- e.g. Zelph

[Scott Lloyd]

On 2/24/2019 at 11:49 AM, blueglass said:

 From what I understand from the most recent announcement by the church they took a step away from historicity by saying no geographical model works for us.  

Bumping this again for bluegrass. Please cite verbatim with a link or a reference this alleged “recent announcement” from the Church. Where precisely did the Church leaders say, “No geographical model works for us,” much less use it as an occasion to take “a step away from historicity”?

And yes, we’ll call this a CFR.

In case you are confused on this point, declining to formally endorse a particular theory about Book of Mormon geography is <not> tantamount to saying, “No geographical model works for us.” 

One can earnestly believe in the historicity of the book without staking out a particular position about the precise location in the Americas where the events of the book transpired. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Bumping this again for bluegrass. Please cite verbatim with a link or a reference this alleged “recent announcement” from the Church. Where precisely did the Church leaders say, “No geographical model works for us,” much less use it as an occasion to take “a step away from historicity”?

And yes, we’ll call this a CFR.

In case you are confused on this point, declining to formally endorse a particular theory about Book of Mormon geography is <not> tantamount to saying, “No geographical model works for us.” 

One can earnestly believe in the historicity of the book without staking out a particular position about the precise location in the Americas where the events of the book transpired. 

Do you think it's possible that the "no geographical model works for us" was an interpretive paraphrase? After all, bluegrass did not put that into quotes. You did.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 2/27/2019 at 7:22 PM, Thinking said:

Do you think it's possible that the "no geographical model works for us" was an interpretive paraphrase? After all, bluegrass did not put that into quotes. You did.

I was quoting bluegrass’s words (I doubt anyone speaking for the Church really said that).

And if it’s an “interpretive paraphrase,” let bluegrass cite and quote verbatim what is being interpreted so we can determine how accurate/misleading his/her “interpretive paraphrase” is. 

Edited March 1, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I was quoting bluegrass’s words (I doubt anyone speaking for the Church really said that).

And if it’s an “interpretive phrase,” let bluegrass cite and quote verbatim what is being interpreted so we can determine how accurate/misleading the “interpretive phrase” is. 

Hi Scott... I haven't really been a part of this subthread discussion.  And I see why the phrase "no geographical model works for us" would be something you'd challenge.  It has certain implications.  (I'm guessing that @blueglass is not coming back to this thread.)

But, I'm wondering if you would agree with a statement such as this:  "To date, the Church has not officially accepted any one geographical model for the Book of Mormon within its correlated curriculum."

I'm not aware of the Church making any proclamation that "no geographical model works" but I also am not aware of them institutionally subscribing to any particular geographical model.  You?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Hi Scott... I haven't really been a part of this subthread discussion.  And I see why the phrase "no geographical model works for us" would be something you'd challenge.  It has certain implications.  (I'm guessing that @blueglass is not coming back to this thread.)

But, I'm wondering if you would agree with a statement such as this:  "To date, the Church has not officially accepted any one geographical model for the Book of Mormon within its correlated curriculum."

I'm not aware of the Church making any proclamation that "no geographical model works" but I also am not aware of them institutionally subscribing to any particular geographical model.  You?

Of course I would agree; that’s been my position all along. 

And I’m glad you see the difference between that and “no geographical position works for us.” To me the contrast is very clear. The Church’s position as you have (accurately) characterized it here does not in any way justify the conclusion that the Church “took a step away from historicity.”

[Bernard Gui]

On 2/23/2019 at 4:04 PM, mfbukowski said:

Moroni 10 says nothing about studying the facts of the Book of Mormon it says ask God and he will manifest the truth to you.

If you don't believe that then we really don't have much to discuss.

 

But if Moroni was just a filament of Joseph Smith's brilliant imagination who never existed, didn't write a book, was not resurrected, and didn't appear to Joseph, that's not much of a promise.

[churchistrue]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

But if Moroni was just a filament of Joseph Smith's brilliant imagination who never existed, didn't write a book, was not resurrected, and didn't appear to Joseph, that's not much of a promise.

Why? Does Moroni have any ability to back that promise up?

[Bernard Gui]

On 2/24/2019 at 10:49 AM, blueglass said:

I'm not saying there are none, but what other sacred texts or books with historical figures, people, nations, languages, anthropology, are there out there which have no official geography for where the events took place?  From what I understand from the most recent announcement by the church they took a step away from historicity by saying no geographical model works for us.  

Here is an example from Elder Ted Brewerton from his talk in general conference in 1995.

"Many migratory groups came to the Americas, but none was as important as the three mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The blood of these people flows in the veins of the Blackfoot and the Blood Indians of Alberta, Canada; in the Navajo and the Apache of the American Southwest; the Inca of western South America; the Aztec of Mexico; the Maya of Guatemala; and in other native American groups in the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific islands."

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/the-book-of-mormon-a-sacred-ancient-record?lang=eng

Ted Brewerton was my mission president in Central America. He had some profound spiritual experiences, including the introduction to them of the Book of Mormon, while working with leaders of the Cuna Indians on the San Blas Islands near Panama. So did the elders who served there. Not proof of anything, of course, but he was not speaking out of thin air.

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Why? Does Moroni have any ability to back that promise up?

Well, there's the proof I have that he told the truth. I'm sure that will not be good enough for you, though, as it should not be. 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

But if Moroni was just a filament of Joseph Smith's brilliant imagination who never existed, didn't write a book, was not resurrected, and didn't appear to Joseph, that's not much of a promise.

I never said it didn't happen, I believe it did !!

I have no idea why people have such a hard time making this distinction.

Of course I believe it happened. But I don't believe it based on historical evidence. I believe it on the spirit.

The historic evidence is extremely scant I can't imagine why anyone would believe it solely based on history.

I would not for one second base my eternity on the historical evidence for the Book of Mormon.

If there was sufficient evidence to believe in the Book of Mormon based on history everyone would be LDS.  

Besides that what historical evidence do we have for any moral belief that we know in our heart is true?

Based on history would you know that murder is wrong?

History does not prove moral OR religious principles to be true. And similarly it cannot prove them false either.

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I never said it didn't happen, I believe it did !!

I have no idea why people have such a hard time making this distinction.

Of course I believe it happened. But I don't believe it based on historical evidence. I believe it on the spirit.

The historic evidence is extremely scant I can't imagine why anyone would believe it solely based on history.

I would not for one second base my eternity on the historical evidence for the Book of Mormon.

If there was sufficient evidence to believe in the Book of Mormon based on history everyone would be LDS.  

Besides that what historical evidence do we have for any moral belief that we know in our heart is true?

Based on history would you know that murder is wrong?

History does not prove moral OR religious principles to be true. And similarly it cannot prove them false either.

 

I understand what you are saying and am in agreement. Agency is paramount. 

[Gray]

President Oaks once laid out a principle when it comes to the Church position on "nurture or nature":

 

Quote

Public Affairs: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature’

Elder Dallin H. Oaks: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.

I don't see why the same position shouldn't be taken in regards to historicity. Historicity is a historical question, so why should the church have a doctrinal position on it?

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, Gray said:

President Oaks once laid out a principle when it comes to the Church position on "nurture or nature":

 

I don't see why the same position shouldn't be taken in regards to historicity. Historicity is a historical question, so why should the church have a doctrinal position on it?

He again reiterated that separation and his talk in October conference on truth and the proclamation on the Family.

I don't recall the full title but it starts with the word truth.

But I agree completely.

My stake president and dear friend speaks of the difference between truth and facts.

That's not very good philosophy the way he states it but if you understand what are you saying it really is.

What he is calling truth is what we know for ourselves, within our gut, things like morality and that killing people is wrong and that there is a God. 

By facts he means essentially the philosophies of men which are Socially constructed and confirmed observations stated in a certain way using certain contexts, but which are the collective opinions of "the authorities" in a context.

Another way of saying it is that it is the collective beliefs of peers within a context, which we often call "objective."

That would include science and history.

It's not philosophically stated but I think he definitely understands the principle.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

President Oaks once laid out a principle when it comes to the Church position on "nurture or nature":

I don't see why the same position shouldn't be taken in regards to historicity. Historicity is a historical question, so why should the church have a doctrinal position on it?

Not to state the obvious, but Christ's resurrection is a historical question too. Should the Church have a position on that?

I think Elder Oaks' point was more that with regards to homosexuality we only have doctrines on whether practices are right or wrong but not on biological causes. But that's not some general principle of keeping science and religion in different magistraria but simply that the scriptures and modern revelation don't say anything about causes. 

So I think reading Oaks as making a claim about what makes something doctrine or not is wrong. He's just taking for granted what the doctrines are and noting they don't address the scientific questions. Doctrine does address many historical questions though. Perhaps some who'd like religion to just be about what science doesn't address might prefer it differently of course.

Edited March 1, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

President Oaks once laid out a principle when it comes to the Church position on "nurture or nature":

 

I don't see why the same position shouldn't be taken in regards to historicity. Historicity is a historical question, so why should the church have a doctrinal position on it?

Because doctrine is what it is. The essential component of some doctrine (clarkgoble gave an obvious example) is that certain events really did happen and are not just fictional metaphor and no amount or degree of gaslighting is going to change that. 

Edited March 1, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Because doctrine is what it is. The essential component of some doctrine (clarkgoble gave an obvious example) is that certain events really did happen and are not just fictional metaphor and no amount or degree of gaslighting is going to change that. 

The doctrines of the Restoration are based on the historical appearance of resurrected beings. Perhaps someone could explain how those doctrines stand if those appearances were not events in history. 

[Gray]

On 3/1/2019 at 2:23 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Because doctrine is what it is. The essential component of some doctrine (clarkgoble gave an obvious example) is that certain events really did happen and are not just fictional metaphor and

If your doctrine requires science or history to come to certain conclusions, you're going to have a bad time.

 

On 3/1/2019 at 2:23 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

no amount or degree of gaslighting is going to change that.  

You're using that word wrong.

[Gray]

On 3/1/2019 at 1:23 PM, clarkgoble said:

Not to state the obvious, but Christ's resurrection is a historical question too. Should the Church have a position on that?

Not really. The supernatural is outside the purview of history.

 

Quote

I think Elder Oaks' point was more that with regards to homosexuality we only have doctrines on whether practices are right or wrong but not on biological causes. But that's not some general principle of keeping science and religion in different magistraria but simply that the scriptures and modern revelation don't say anything about causes. 

So I think reading Oaks as making a claim about what makes something doctrine or not is wrong. He's just taking for granted what the doctrines are and noting they don't address the scientific questions. Doctrine does address many historical questions though. Perhaps some who'd like religion to just be about what science doesn't address might prefer it differently of course.

The problem of course is that neither doctrine nor revelation have any standing to address historical questions, just as history and science have no standing to address theological questions.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, Gray said:

If your doctrine requires science or history to come to certain conclusions, you're going to have a bad time.

On the contrary, if you refuse to accept the Book of Mormon’s self identification as being historically authentic, your faith is incoherent. 

You don’t have to prove it scientifically; you can accept it as a matter of religious faith. But to regard it as a fiction eviscerates it as a matter of faith.