Books with Questionable Historicity

[e=mc2]

Yes, but you have to pay more for the privilege.

Not only that, but he probably ought to have to join the others in the back tents instead of the fine housing......hee, hee, hee......

[Nomad]

So Bill. Even though you agree with apostate views and I called you a "jerk," can I still stay with you in Jerusalem?

Nomad,

I couldn't agree more. However, personally I would broaden the spectrum considerably by removing the adjective "Biblical."

best,

--DB

But the question remains, do you agree with this statement:

... Bill is correct: historicity in terms of the Book of Mormon means that there really must have been Jaredites, Nephites, metallic records buried in a stone box, two transparent stones in the rims of a bow, etc.

I think you do. But I also think that it becomes very important for people not accustomed to thinking in post-modernistic terms to understand that you do make distinctions between the necessary and the essentially unimportant. Many people (Jason on this thread, for example) simply cannot wrap their brains around what they consider to be the intellectual gymnastics of the 21st century scholar. They need to be reassured that, even in the throes and thrall of your intellectually-induced entheogenic orgasm ( ), you are still holding tight to a very real and substantial "rod of iron" (an ironic allusion, considering the context!).

[Bill Hamblin]

Ok, Jerk! Of course the issue of whether or not the resurrection of Christ was historical or merely an esoteric symbol matters.

That's better, duffus!

So if the question of a historical resurrection of Christ matters in the NT, why does the question of an historical Christophany of Christ in the New World not matter? If the BOM is inspired fiction, then was no New World Christophany, right?

[e=mc2]

That's better, duffus!

So if the question of a historical resurrection of Christ matters in the NT, why does the question of an historical Christophany of Christ in the New World not matter? If the BOM is inspired fiction, then was no New World Christophany, right?

Oooooooooooooooooooooo, Hamblin baby is takin off the gloves on David baby. Kerry baby sits back (like a baby) and enjoys the festivities of these babies......

[Jason]

Many people (Jason on this thread, for example) simply cannot wrap their brains around what they consider to be the intellectual gymnastics of the 21st century scholar.

Oh I can wrap my brain around it - I am effectively a 21st century post-modern scholar, after all - but I reject such contortions as essentialy silly and not particularly useful for the effort involved.

[Bill Hamblin]

Oooooooooooooooooooooo, Hamblin baby is takin off the gloves on David baby. Kerry baby sits back (like a baby) and enjoys the festivities of these babies......

No comments from the peanut gallery! Either put your gloves on and step into the ring, or shut up!!!!

[e=mc2]

No comments from the peanut gallery! Either put your gloves on and step into the ring, or shut up!!!!

Oooooooooooooooooooooo! Now Hambin baby is squawkin at Kerry Baby and David baby is ignoring the plight of the babies, so I guess I shall have to just defend meself here against that tyrant and imbecilic vicious apologist hack wannabe scholar Hamblin baby. Soooooooooooo.... O.K. I think the historicity of Christ's visit was factual, in both worlds. However, I don't subscribe to the view that everything in the BofM has to be historical or else is is all merely fictional. That was my point about Jesus' parables. If there really never was a good samaritan in historical reality, that does nothing to take away from the truth in the parable nor the historical nature of it being presented as a lesson on our morals. Yes? An ahistorical parable is nothing proving that Jesus was thus fictional. So if there are ahistorical aspects in the Book of Mormon, that hardly proves it is fiction.

[mfbukowski]

That's better, duffus!

So if the question of a historical resurrection of Christ matters in the NT, why does the question of an historical Christophany of Christ in the New World not matter? If the BOM is inspired fiction, then was no New World Christophany, right?

Yeah but if you can't "prove" either one you are just arguing about nothing! That's why they call it "faith"!

[Nomad]

Oh I can wrap my brain around it - I am effectively a 21st century post-modern scholar, after all - but I reject such contortions as essentialy silly and not particularly useful for the effort involved.

You could have fooled me. You don't seem to manifest the intellectual pliability of a "21st century post-modern scholar." But perhaps your demand for the concrete is unique to your religious compartment.

You see, I think David and Ben make very good points; points that need careful consideration when attempting to understand the Book of Mormon in its time and place.

I also believe Bill is correct in his observation about the immutability of certain aspects of the advent of the Book of Mormon.

In my view, their arguments are not mutually exclusive, but rather constitute, respectively, micro and macro views of the question of its "truthfulness."

[Nomad]

No comments from the peanut gallery! Either put your gloves on and step into the ring, or shut up!!!!

Is it really true that you are guilty of war crimes?

I've heard it so claimed in certain quarters, and I wondered if you could set the record straight once and for all.

[Jason]

You could have fooled me. You don't seem to manifest the intellectual pliability of a "21st century post-modern scholar."

I will take that as a compliment.

You see, I think David and Ben make very good points; points that need careful consideration when attempting to understand the Book of Mormon in its time and place.

They aren't bad points - I just feel they go too far, being too accepting of what might be called "flexibility" in the historical content of the Book of Mormon narrative.

[Bill Hamblin]

Is it really true that you are guilty of war crimes?

I've heard it so claimed in certain quarters, and I wondered if you could set the record straight once and for all.

In the great tradition of American politicians, I am innocent of any crime I committed.

[Bill Hamblin]

An ahistorical parable is nothing proving that Jesus was thus fictional. So if there are ahistorical aspects in the Book of Mormon, that hardly proves it is fiction.

Right, but that's not the question. The question of historicity of the BOM is: were there were Nephites, etc, or not? It is not about the accuracy of every alleged historical event in the BOM. Some of the BOM, the allegory of the Olive Tree for example, is obviously fiction. But is it 19th century fiction, or ancient fiction?

[Luigi]

There are very smart people who believe the Book of Mormon was written anciently, and very smart people who believe it was written in the 19th century. I'm wondering whether there are any other such books in existence, where its historicity is debated by people who study it.

And I don't mean who the author was (i.e. was Shakespeare really a pen name for the Earl of Oxford) , or whether a particular text is a forgery of an ancient document, but whether the book itself was written during a particular time frame.

I've wondered this on occasion lately, and would appreciate any responses people have.

The historicity of the Book of Mormon should be taken no more seriously than the claims of Edgar Casey about divining information about ancient Egypt and Atlantis. Both come of means which most would consider unreliable if not laughable and consequently most scholars justifiable ignore them.

[Jason]

The historicity of the Book of Mormon should be taken no more seriously than the claims of Edgar Casey about divining information about ancient Egypt and Atlantis. Both come of means which most would consider unreliable if not laughable and consequently most scholars justifiable ignore them.

A comment which adds exactly nothing to the discussion.

[Bill Hamblin]

The historicity of the Book of Mormon should be taken no more seriously than the claims of Edgar Casey about divining information about ancient Egypt and Atlantis. Both come of means which most would consider unreliable if not laughable and consequently most scholars justifiable ignore them.

The question here is not whether the BOM is historical and ancient. The question here is what are the implications of it being or not being historical and ancient. So, your opinion is irrelevant.

[David Bokovoy]

That's better, duffus!

So if the question of a historical resurrection of Christ matters in the NT, why does the question of an historical Christophany of Christ in the New World not matter? If the BOM is inspired fiction, then was no New World Christophany, right?

Look Beavis,

I've got to teach a class out at Wellseley College and then I'm driving over to Cambridge. I'll be back to deal with you later.

Still much love and respect,

-David

[Luigi]

A comment which adds exactly nothing to the discussion.

The OP asked about books which are of questionable historicity. I gave an example, the work of Edgar Cayce which included alleged historical information from Cayce's 'readings' where he claims he connected with the universe to gain unknown information. A small group of individuals take Cayce's writings seriously but the vast majority of scholars don't even consider reading them. Why? Because Cayce's methods are considered absurd and unreliable, just as Joseph Smith's seerstones in a hat and alleged angels are considered unreliable.

[Nomad]

The question here is not whether the BOM is historical and ancient. The question here is what are the implications of it being or not being historical and ancient. So, your opinion is irrelevant.

And it would seem that Bokovoy has vacated his argument.

Either that, or he is pretending that he has something better to do than waste his time here.

Speaking of which ...

Edit: written before I realized he had made a brief appearance and offered a lame excuse for his absence.

I guess I will also find something better to do than monitor this board today in expectation of beastie's tour de force response to my new Pundit's thread.

[Bill Hamblin]

Look Beavis,

-David

That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me.

[Bill Hamblin]

The OP asked about books which are of questionable historicity. I gave an example, the work of Edgar Cayce which included alleged historical information from Cayce's 'readings' where he claims he connected with the universe to gain unknown information. A small group of individuals take Cayce's writings seriously but the vast majority of scholars don't even consider reading them. Why? Because Cayce's methods are considered absurd and unreliable, just as Joseph Smith's seerstones in a hat and alleged angels are considered unreliable.

It is more than a fundamental fallacy to claim that because Prophet A is a fraud, therefore Prophet B must be a fraud. If Cayce is a fraud, it does not demonstrate that Joseph was a fraud, nor does it demonstrate that all alleged prophets, any where and at any time are frauds.

If I falsely claim I can do brain surgery, it does not mean that all people who claim to be brain surgeons are frauds.

If I falsely claim to be a policeman, it does not mean that all people claiming to be policemen are frauds.

Talk about a fallacy of false analogy!

[Luigi]

It is more than a fundamental fallacy to claim that because Prophet A is a fraud, therefore Prophet B must be a fraud. If Cayce is a fraud, it does not demonstrate that Joseph was a fraud, nor does it demonstrate that all alleged prophets, any where and at any time are frauds.

If I falsely claim I can do brain surgery, it does not mean that all people who claim to be brain surgeons are frauds.

If I falsely claim to be a police men, it does not mean that all people claiming to be policemen are frauds.

Talk about a fallacy of false analogy!

All prophets are frauds. The point is if you claim to use questionable means to gain historical (or future) information your information is not generally considered credible. That is why no serious nonLDS scholar of Mesoamerica even considers reading the Book of Mormon as part of his studies and why Egyptologists aren't studying the works of Edgar Cayce.

[Jason]

All prophets are frauds.

CFR.

[John Larsen]

CFR.

Just kidding. Maybe.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The historicity of the Book of Mormon should be taken no more seriously than the claims of Edgar Casey about divining information about ancient Egypt and Atlantis. Both come of means which most would consider unreliable if not laughable and consequently most scholars justifiable ignore them.

Maybe you weren't following the whole conversation?

Nomad: I pick up what you're putting down, and think your analysis is pretty spot on as far as the differences between Bill and David.