Is Historicity Important To The Book of Mormon?

[Ray Agostini]

And again, again, the "automatic writer" in this case made some rather singular pronouncements, some rather interesting stories, and achieved a remarkable level of sophistication. I believe the automatic writers theory itself requires quite a leap of faith.

William James, for one, took it quite seriously, as have many other notable figures. It doesn't require a leap of faith to determine that Joseph Smith was able to dig up things ancient - the evidence is there. As it is in other cases of AW. What often occurs is a denial (against the evidence) that this is possible. In effect, one has to ignore the evidence.

[LifeOnaPlate]

William James, for one, took it quite seriously, as have many other notable figures. It doesn't require a leap of faith to determine that Joseph Smith was able to dig up things ancient - the evidence is there. As it is in other cases of AW. What often occurs is a denial (against the evidence) that this is possible. In effect, one has to ignore the evidence.

I agree. In a theory of automatic writing there is a good deal of ignoring a good deal of evidence.

[mfbukowski]

William James, for one, took it quite seriously, as have many other notable figures. It doesn't require a leap of faith to determine that Joseph Smith was able to dig up things ancient - the evidence is there. As it is in other cases of AW. What often occurs is a denial (against the evidence) that this is possible. In effect, one has to ignore the evidence.

Well I am pretty familiar with James, and I assume you are talking about the discussion in the Varieties of Religious Experience, the discussion of the "reality of the unseen" and related experiences James discusses, but for the life of me I cannot see how that discussion escapes the argument as put forward in the linked FAIR article, also linked here

The Book of Mormon as Automatic Writing: Beware the Virtus Dormitiva

Richard N. Williams

Because Dunn offers nothing more than a virtus dormitiva, the difficulty faced by a reviewer centers around two conclusions toward which an astute reader is drawn: (1) If Dunn is right and the Book of Mormon is the product of automatic writing, the reader of the Book of Mormon is left to decide whether the source of the book is God or some other source, and whether the content of the book is true (doctrinally and historically). (2) If Dunn is wrong and the Book of Mormon is not the product of automatic writing, the reader of the Book of Mormon is left to decide whether the source of the book is God or some other source, and whether the content of the book is true (doctrinally and historically).

In Varieties, James is simply pointing out that such experiences exist and he is trying to account for them and never postulates a source, and in this context I think the above argument is a telling one. Automatic writing can be explained as "revelation" or as some psychological phenomenon, but which is correct is subject to conjecture, so ascribing the BOM to automatic writing really doesn't answer if it was a "revelation" an "expanded translation" from some spiritualist source or what it purports to be.

[mfbukowski]

I think that would be quite exciting because it might be the last hope for providing further evidence of historicity of the BOM, until we find some rusting steel swords with Egyptian hieroglyphics which translate phonetically to "Nephi"!

Here I disagree. I don't think the reconstruction would demonstrate historicity to anyone who did not accept historicity prior to the reconstruction. Only with that assumption would the reconstruction have any chance of being more than an ingenious argument. There are too many variables to use it for form the basis of any argument for historicity. If it has value, it is in understanding, not proving.

Actually I think this is a misunderstanding. I didn't mean that the reconstruction would demonstrate historicity to one who did not accept it prior to the reconstruction, I meant that it might be among the last available arguments for historicity which "gets around" Ostler's view, until and if there is further more tangible archaeological evidence. So what I am saying, is that I hope you do that study, because I think it would be very important, and fill a very necessary link in what yet has to be shown as evidence for historicity until some "proof" is discovered.

[Ray Agostini]

In Varieties, James is simply pointing out that such experiences exist and he is trying to account for them and never postulates a source, and in this context I think the above argument is a telling one. Automatic writing can be explained as "revelation" or as some psychological phenomenon, but which is correct is subject to conjecture, so ascribing the BOM to automatic writing really doesn't answer if it was a "revelation" an "expanded translation" from some spiritualist source or what it purports to be.

Varieties is not what I'm referring too (I may do a separate thread on this later on). And yes, the source of the "revelation" is open to question/interpretation, and whether it's from God or some other source (which may also be benign). I don't see a problem with it being from God, though that isn't necessarily my conclusion (I really don't have one, but can easily accept the "God factor", with qualifications I will later make in another thread). Once again, I have studied this for many years, and of course I'm biased like everyone else, but nothing has altered my opinion that AW is the best fit for all the evidence (and I'm including the manner of "translation", eyewitness accounts, etc). It doesn't have the failings of the Spalding Theory, except this one huge one: It supposes a "supernatural" production. But even there they allow for the possibility of it still being from God:

We do not fully understand the method that the Lord used to give the gift of translation to Brother Joseph. Whether Joseph Smith received the translation of the Book of Mormon through automatic writing or not, the essential point is to know if that translation is from God, and therefore another testament of Jesus Christ.

Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/Automatic writing.

Interestingly, sociologist Thomas O'Dea, author of The Mormons, suggested as far back as 1957 that the Book of Mormon may have been produced by AW. I think he too saw this as one possible avenue that required serious exploration. Of course I realise the problems and difficulties Mormons may feel about this approach, and naturally feel defensive of the traditional interpretation.

[LifeOnaPlate]

How do those physical golden plates fit into your AW theory?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Actually I think this is a misunderstanding. I didn't mean that the reconstruction would demonstrate historicity to one who did not accept it prior to the reconstruction, I meant that it might be among the last available arguments for historicity which "gets around" Ostler's view, until and if there is further more tangible archaeological evidence. So what I am saying, is that I hope you do that study, because I think it would be very important, and fill a very necessary link in what yet has to be shown as evidence for historicity until some "proof" is discovered.

Check the link I've posted, it already brings to bear on this issue.

[Ray Agostini]

How do those physical golden plates fit into your AW theory?

Very easily. It fact it's conducive to the theory. Were they used during the production of the BoM? Even more reason why the AW theory is a better fit than a literal "history" coming off plates.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Very easily. It fact it's conducive to the theory. Were they used during the production of the BoM? Even more reason why the AW theory is a better fit than a literal "history" coming off plates.

Were they used? Directly? For a time, yes. For a majority of the time, it seems they were not directly used (unless they were seen in the stone, which is also possible).

But people saw and handled these plates. How did automatic writing create physical plates for witnesses to feel and handle?

[Ray Agostini]

Were they used? Directly? For a time, yes. For a majority of the time, not directly evidently (unless they were seen in the stone, which is also possible, so again, hard to say). But people saw and handled these plates. How did automatic writing create physical plates for witnesses to feel and handle?

The plates were never used in the translation. As for handling and seeing the plates, we know that Joseph Smith used these as "faith-enhancers". We can learn a lot by observing the BoA debate, too. It is clear that Joseph knew nothing about Egyptian, nor how to translate Egyptian texts. (This also encompasses the "pious fraud" idea, that is, using deceptive means to achieve "worthwhile ends", that is , ultimately, faith in God.)

Thomas Jefferson considered much of the new testament of the Bible to be lies. He described these as "so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture". He described the "roguery of others of His disciples", and called them a "band of dupes and impostors" describing (the Apostle) Paul as the "first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus", and wrote of "palpable interpolations and falsifications". He called the concept of the Holy Trinity itself a "mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus".

He also described the Book of Revelation to be "merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams". While living in the White House, Jefferson began to make his own condensed version of the Gospels, omitting Jesus' virgin birth, miracles, divinity, and resurrection, primarily leaving only Jesus' moral philosophy, of which he approved. This compilation was published after his death and became known as the Jefferson Bible.[1]

Pious fraud.

I of course realise that this will cause some serious choking on corn flakes for many.

[mfbukowski]

Or dumb luck.

mfbukowski, check out Gardner's FAIR presentation from 2008. It was simply excellent.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2008_Mormons_Editorial_Method_and_Meta-Message.html

I am sorry I somehow missed this. Simply amazing. It is so clear to me that an expansion of this line of reasoning is simply the way to go. With an old skeptic like me, seeing this structure where before I saw none is unbelievably illuminating.

This is just plain an amazing thread! And as Kevin suggested, the context of the whole perception of the BOM can be changed by seeing relationships such as these. Thanks you guys!

I have always had a strong strong spiritual testimony of the BOM, but now I feel it is taking on new dimensions.

[sethpayne]

But people saw and handled these plates. How did automatic writing create physical plates for witnesses to feel and handle?

Did they handle physical plates or have a vision in which they handled plates? In the context of this thread, this would seem to be an important question.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The plates were never used in the translation.

Simply not the case. The first approach to the translation was copying characters from the plates and translating them, the result of which was taken to Charles Anthon by Martin Harris. And even after that, when the plates were covered on the table or hidden away from the house (at the Hale place) JS could have seen them through the seer stone.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Did they handle physical plates or have a vision in which they handled plates? In the context of this thread, this would seem to be an important question.

The three witnesses, because of the involvement of the angel evidently, believed the experience was both physical and spiritual. The eight witnesses only mention the physical aspects. Don't fall for the whole "spiritual eyes only" routine; the witnesses own accounts won't allow it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I am sorry I somehow missed this. Simply amazing. It is so clear to me that an expansion of this line of reasoning is simply the way to go. With an old skeptic like me, seeing this structure where before I saw none is unbelievably illuminating.

This is just plain an amazing thread! And as Kevin suggested, the context of the whole perception of the BOM can be changed by seeing relationships such as these. Thanks you guys!

I have always had a strong strong spiritual testimony of the BOM, but now I feel it is taking on new dimensions.

[paulpatter]

You are either not understanding me or not listening, and appear to be rather persistent in not understanding. I affirm that the Book of Mormon is an historical account, and have a testimony that it is true.

An apology is in order re. your last sentence, which I hereby tender (but I'm not through).

: My point is an epistemological one about the value of attempts to PROVE the historic contents of any document in a SCIENTIFIC sense, which I take to be the objective of some.

Any document? You overreach. Those doctors/medical scientists who studied the research notes of Dr. William Harvey went on to substantiate Dr. Harvey's monumental finding about the human circulatory system; i.e., the heart acts as a pump. They found stunning value in the "historic contents" of Dr. Harvey's science-based writings--value that revolutionized medicine. Ah, but you were referring to religious writings; specifically, to the BoM. If I understand your position (which could be a leap), there is no value in attempts to prove the historicity of the BoM using any form of science-based methodology. That is your position, isn't it?

: We must take it on faith, not science, and the only proof we can have is the non-scientific proof of a spiritual witness which is just as "valid" as a scientific truth, however it is NOT scientific truth.

What then is the role of LDS apologists? Why does FARMS exist? What then do our missionaries have to offer investigators that every other religion cannot likewise offer? Are we to ignore serious, faith-eroding, science-based challenges to the BoM, when--in fact--we have science-based data that can be brought to bear in the book's defense, including the DNA issue? Moreover, what is the rationale for the Church's unprecedented emphasis on record-keeping, including family histories, journals, letters, and notes taken of the Prophet Joseph's speeches? Are you aware that there is remarkable congruence in eyewitness accounts of pivotal moments in Church history. Do you really find no value in that?

It seems to me that you advocate a position that would seriously jeopardize 1) the Church's missionary effort, and 2) the Church's membership retention rate.

: Go back and read my posts and you will see this is about the third time I have said this. In fact on one of my previous posts, I showed concern that some would not understand my position. Sometimes I don't know why I bother- I thought I was expressing it as clearly as possible.

If I have misrepresented your position in this post, please provide clarification.

[Ray Agostini]

Simply not the case. The first approach to the translation was copying characters from the plates and translating them, the result of which was taken to Charles Anthon by Martin Harris. And even after that, when the plates were covered on the table or hidden away from the house (at the Hale place) JS could have seen them through the seer stone.

This is where you continually lose credibility as an apologist. And I'm serious about this, because you do it frequently. That the plates were not used during the "translation" is a fact, and I'll quote your "chief" apologist on the subject (for your benefit):

Peterson said the Book of Mormon was revealed to Smith through a seer stone. Smith never went through the golden pages of the ancient record, but instead put the seer stone in a hat, then buried his head in the hat to shut out ambient light.

(Emphasis added)

Joseph Smith translated by revelation, professor says.

As for the "caractors" copied from the plates, what is the translation? Give me a word for word translation.

Why does "straining at gnats" come to my mind whenever I read your apologetics?

[LifeOnaPlate]

This is where you continually lose credibility as an apologist. And I'm serious about this, because you do it frequently. That the plates were not used during the "translation" is a fact, and I'll quote your "chief" apologist on the subject (for your benefit):

(Emphasis added)

Joseph Smith translated by revelation, professor says.

As for the "caractors" copied from the plates, what is the translation? Give me a word for word translation.

Why does "straining at gnats" come to my mind whenever I read your apologetics?

I frequently and continuously lose credibility as an apologist? Well, if it makes you feel any better you didn't have much to lose in my eyes to start with, and so my "credibility" according to Ray doesn't mean much to me. OH SNAP! While we're "seriously" trading snipes maybe we can just have a dance off! Where's the translation? It would be lost with the rest of the 116 pages.

(Parenthetically, I am working on a project right now to get together all of the translation accounts from the various witnesses who left statements regarding the process. You'll have to be patient to see the results, though, Ray. So will "my chief apologist.")

[Ray Agostini]

(Parenthetically, I am working on a project right now to get together all of the translation accounts from the various witnesses who left statements regarding the process. You'll have to be patient to see the results, though, Ray. So will "my chief apologist.")

I thought Richard L. Anderson already did that? He also examined many AW accounts and claims to "sacred books" he could find, and dismissed all of them - except the BoM. Now why does that not surprise me?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I thought Richard L. Anderson already did that?

No. There have been attempts, but none comprehensive. Yet.

[rockslider]

Ray,

Excellent thread ... I have many links to follow and much to read.

Thanks

[Ray Agostini]

No. There have been attempts, but none comprehensive. Yet.

That's a bit, er, presumptious. Anderson has examined the accounts of the key witnesses, and published them in Investigating Book of Mormon Witnesses.

Here is your stated aim:

I am working on a project right now to get together all of the translation accounts from the various witnesses who left statements regarding the process.

So Anderson, et.al, missed something? If he felt an account was vital to bolstering Joseph Smith's claims, he would have left it out? I also note his Wiki entry:

His book Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses is widely considered the definitive work on this subject.

I presume you're going to better this, which "isn't comprehensive"? Well at least no one can accuse you of lacking ambition. I presume you'll have full access to the Church Archives, and will spend the next 20-30 years looking for things other scholars missed?

Good luck.

[cinepro]

I presume you're going to better this, which "isn't comprehensive"? Well at least no one can accuse you of lacking ambition. I presume you'll have full access to the Church Archives, and will spend the next 20-30 years looking for things other scholars missed?

Good luck.

Ummm, I think he is referring to witnesses of the Book of Mormon translation process (i.e. people who actually saw Joseph Smith doing the translating in Harmony or Fayette).

Anderson studied the witnesses who claimed to have seen the plates and/or angel.

[Ray Agostini]

Ummm, I think he is referring to witnesses of the Book of Mormon translation process (i.e. people who actually saw Joseph Smith doing the translating in Harmony or Fayette).

Anderson studied the witnesses who claimed to have seen the plates and/or angel.

Anderson does not only cover the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, that is, the three main witnesses and the eight, though the three are obviously the highlight. But if LoaP can come up with something far more comprehensive than this: Translation of the Book of Mormon, then I await to be impressed. I think it's going to require a significant amount of time in the Church Archives.

There were numerous witnesses to the translation of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith. They all tell essentially the same story. Joseph would put a stone in a hat, then burying his face in the hat he would proceed to dictate the Book of Mormon to the scribe. Joseph claimed to see in the darkened hat the words he dictated. The gold plates were either always covered in a cloth, where no one including Joseph could even see them or they were not even in the room at the time Joseph was translating.

[Ray Agostini]

Ray,

Excellent thread ... I have many links to follow and much to read.

Thanks

This link might also be of interest: Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates.

Particularly the Bibliography.