Is Historicity Important To The Book of Mormon?

[LifeOnaPlate]

During the initial 116 pages there is the possibility he used the plates directly, copying characters from them and providing a translation for Harris to take to Anthon. Still working out the details from the witness accounts but we'll see what we find. (And unless it can be argued that JS saw the plates in the stone, the vast majority of the translation was done without looking at the physical plates directly.

[rockslider]

Wow, did this thread get sanitized or what?

Our own little version of Where's Waldo?

[paulpatter]

You still don't get what the inspired scripture camp thinks, many don't. There was no conspiracy, where did you get that? Radio talk show host, Van Hale, was the first I know of that believed the inspired scripture theory. He believes the only reason plates were provided was to give a tangible peace of evidence that witnesses could see. But, the plates weren't even used when the translation took place.

In Post #92 you explain the thinking of those who don't regard the BoM as authentic history. As part of that explanation, you say that such individuals still regard Joseph Smith as a prophet and the book as being divinely inspired. My comment about a "conspiracy" is based on a supposition some critics might posit that if the BoM isn't history (no Father Lehi, no Nephites, no Lamanites, etc.), Joseph Smith was, unwittingly, part of a conspiracy to present as legitimate history a story that was patently false.

Would God do such a thing? No way.

BTW, your last sentence (as I believe someone else has pointed out) isn't correct.

[mfbukowski]

In Post #92 you explain the thinking of those who don't regard the BoM as authentic history. As part of that explanation, you say that such individuals still regard Joseph Smith as a prophet and the book as being divinely inspired. My comment about a "conspiracy" is based on a supposition some critics might posit that if the BoM isn't history (no Father Lehi, no Nephites, no Lamanites, etc.), Joseph Smith was, unwittingly, part of a conspiracy to present as legitimate history a story that was patently false.

Would God do such a thing? No way.

BTW, your last sentence (as I believe someone else has pointed out) isn't correct.

This is off topic, but I am just curious if you regard the six day creation in Genesis as history, Noahs flood as global history, that a donkey spoke, and that that Jonah really was in that fish for 3 days.

I know many church members do, and I would be the last to say that those things didn't happen since I maintain that it is unknowable if they did or didn't -- and I am certainly not about to say that "God couldn't do those things"-- but I am just curious if you think they DID in fact happen historically exactly as stated in the bible.

In case it's not clear, I don't think they happened historically. Again, just an honest question to see how far apart we really are.

[paulpatter]

This is off topic, but I am just curious if you regard the six day creation in Genesis as history, Noahs flood as global history, that a donkey spoke, and that that Jonah really was in that fish for 3 days.

I know many church members do, and I would be the last to say that those things didn't happen since I maintain that it is unknowable if they did or didn't -- and I am certainly not about to say that "God couldn't do those things"-- but I am just curious if you think they DID in fact happen historically exactly as stated in the bible.

In case it's not clear, I don't think they happened historically. Again, just an honest question to see how far apart we really are.

Thank you for the questions. I regard much of what is written in the OT as storytelling and theater. It's important to remember (seems to me) that the King James version is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, ad infinitum. Then, too, as Latter-day Saints, we have an "out": Article 8 of the Articles of Faith.

On the other hand, anything is possible with God; we need to keep that in mind.

I hope this is helpful, even though it isn't as specific as you may have liked.

All the best.

[mysteryman]

[name=paulpatter' date='10 September 2009 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1252633861' post='1208716814]

In Post #92 you explain the thinking of those who don't regard the BoM as authentic history. As part of that explanation, you say that such individuals still regard Joseph Smith as a prophet and the book as being divinely inspired. My comment about a "conspiracy" is based on a supposition some critics might posit that if the BoM isn't history (no Father Lehi, no Nephites, no Lamanites, etc.), Joseph Smith was, unwittingly, part of a conspiracy to present as legitimate history a story that was patently false.

Critics already believe in conspiracy. So whats your point? I say again, the advocates of inspired scripture believe in no such conspiracy, so your repsponse is meaningless.

Would God do such a thing? No way.

Why wouldn't God? God said he used the word "eternal damnation" in DC 19 to work on the hearts of men even though it isn't eternal. God commanded Abraham to lie about his wife in the Book of Abraham. So God is capable of lying and deception. But that isn't the argument used by the inspired scripture advocates anyway.

BTW, your last sentence (as I believe someone else has pointed out) isn't correct.

Nope, LifeOnAPlate said the plates "may" have been used for the 116 pages. But all witnesses that said anything about said he put his head in the hat with his seer stone. If you have a source for a witness who said he saw Joseph using the plates I would like to see it. After you fail to find that source, you should retract your statement that I'm incorrect.

[mysteryman]

Thank you for the questions. I regard much of what is written in the OT as storytelling and theater. It's important to remember (seems to me) that the King James version is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, ad infinitum. Then, too, as Latter-day Saints, we have an "out": Article 8 of the Articles of Faith.

On the other hand, anything is possible with God; we need to keep that in mind.

I hope this is helpful, even though it isn't as specific as you may have liked.

All the best.

The KJV is copy of a copy of a copy of what? There is no disputing these stories bolong in the Bible. So if you are going to say they didn't really happen, then you should give those that believe the BoM to be only inspired scripture a brake to demonstrate logical consistency.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Nope, LifeOnAPlate said the plates "may" have been used for the 116 pages. But all witnesses that said anything about said he put his head in the hat with his seer stone. If you have a source for a witness who said he saw Joseph using the plates I would like to see it. After you fail to find that source, you should retract your statement that I'm incorrect.

Patience!

[mfbukowski]

Thank you for the questions. I regard much of what is written in the OT as storytelling and theater. It's important to remember (seems to me) that the King James version is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, ad infinitum. Then, too, as Latter-day Saints, we have an "out": Article 8 of the Articles of Faith.

On the other hand, anything is possible with God; we need to keep that in mind.

I hope this is helpful, even though it isn't as specific as you may have liked.

All the best.

So the obvious question to me is if most of the OT is storytelling and theater and we regard it as scripture, why does the BOM have to be historically correct in every detail for us to regard it as scripture? Because of that 8th Article of Faith?

[wenglund]

I have just spent the last hour or so reading this thread for the first time, and I must say that I have found much of it to be quite enlightening. So, I am grateful to Ray for starting it and for all who have participated in the discussion.

And, while there appears to be a broad diversity of opinions about the importance of historicity to faith in the Book of Mormon (if not also in the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and the verity of the restored gospel), I am pleased to see no disagreement with the proposition that the primary importance of the Book of Mormon is to bring us to Christ and enable us to become more like him. As long as this doesn't get lost in the discussion on historicity, then great.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[paulpatter]

[name=paulpatter' date='10 September 2009 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1252633861' post='1208716814]

Critics already believe in conspiracy. So whats your point? I say again, the advocates of inspired scripture believe in no such conspiracy, so your repsponse is meaningless.

In explaining the position of those who reject the BoM as history--a position to which you seem to be sympathetic--perhaps you should have considered the possibility that God created a storyline and used Joseph Smith to implement it; hence "conspiracy." My point in raising that possibility is that it weakens the position (including your own) of those who say the BoM is fiction but that Joseph Smith and the book were Deity directed.

: Why wouldn't God? God said he used the word "eternal damnation" in DC 19 to work on the hearts of men even though it isn't eternal. God commanded Abraham to lie about his wife in the Book of Abraham. So God is capable of lying and deception.

And so, by extension, God restored his Church in this dispensation through the instrumentality of a work of fiction presented to the world as legitimate history. Astonishing. Imagine how all those missionaries (50,000-60,000?) will feel when they learn--under your scenario--that the BoM is a fraud.

: Nope, LifeOnAPlate said the plates "may" have been used for the 116 pages. But all witnesses that said anything about said he put his head in the hat with his seer stone. If you have a source for a witness who said he saw Joseph using the plates I would like to see it. After you fail to find that source, you should retract your statement that I'm incorrect.

Sorry, no retraction will be necessary:

During [the] early period [of translating], Joseph would first copy some of the characters directly from the plates [underlining added] onto sheets of paper, from which sheets he would then translate his transcribed characters into English by means of the Urim and Thummim. During such a process, the plates were uncovered while Joseph translated (or at least while he copied the characters from the plates to paper. . . "). (Royal Skousen, "Joseph Smith's Translation of the Book of Mormon: Evidence for Tight Control of the Text," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Volume 7, Issue 1, 1998)

Your unqualified statement that the plates were not used in the translation process is conjecture because even the Church does not know the methodology. In 1993, Elder Russell M. Nelson stated that "[t]he details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known" (http://en.fairmormon...nslation_method).

[paulpatter]

I APOLOGIZE FOR THE DOUBLE ENTRY.

[name=paulpatter' date='10 September 2009 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1252633861' post='1208716814]

Critics already believe in conspiracy. So whats your point? I say again, the advocates of inspired scripture believe in no such conspiracy, so your repsponse is meaningless.

In explaining the position of those who reject the BoM as history--a position to which you seem to be sympathetic--perhaps you should have considered the possibility that God created a storyline and used Joseph Smith to implement it; hence "conspiracy." My point in raising that possibility is that it weakens the position (including your own) of those who say the BoM is fiction but that Joseph Smith and the book were Deity directed.

: Why wouldn't God? God said he used the word "eternal damnation" in DC 19 to work on the hearts of men even though it isn't eternal. God commanded Abraham to lie about his wife in the Book of Abraham. So God is capable of lying and deception.

And so, by extension, God restored his Church in this dispensation through the instrumentality of a work of fiction presented to the world as legitimate history. Astonishing. Imagine how all those missionaries (50,000-60,000?) will feel when they learn--under your scenario--that the BoM is a fraud.

: Nope, LifeOnAPlate said the plates "may" have been used for the 116 pages. But all witnesses that said anything about said he put his head in the hat with his seer stone. If you have a source for a witness who said he saw Joseph using the plates I would like to see it. After you fail to find that source, you should retract your statement that I'm incorrect.

Sorry, no retraction will be necessary:

During [the] early period [of translating], Joseph would first copy some of the characters directly from the plates [underlining added] onto sheets of paper, from which sheets he would then translate his transcribed characters into English by means of the Urim and Thummim. During such a process, the plates were uncovered while Joseph translated (or at least while he copied the characters from the plates to paper. . . "). (Royal Skousen, "Joseph Smith's Translation of the Book of Mormon: Evidence for Tight Control of the Text," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Volume 7, Issue 1, 1998)

Your unqualified statement that the plates were not used in the translation process is conjecture because even the Church does not know the methodology. In 1993, Elder Russell M. Nelson stated that "[t]he details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known" (http://en.fairmormon...nslation_method).

[William Schryver]

I think there is plenty of room in the Church for those who don't believe the Book of Mormon to be a historical document, and I think many Saints do a great disservice to the power of the restoration scriptures by making the BoM a black or white issue: either it is historical, which would make Joseph a prophet and the Church true, or it is not historical, which would make Joseph a liar and the Church false. I don't think it needs to be that black or white. I don't believe the BoM is a historical document one bit, but I still revere it as Holy Scripture, and Joseph as a prophet of God. Do I believe in the literalness of golden plates written on by Native American prophets on this continent? No. Am I open to such a belief? Yes. I don't think this makes me any less a Latter-day Saint than the person who believes the book is 100% historical.

So no, I would not say historicity is important to the BoM. What is important, though, is what it teaches about Christ and how we should conduct our lives. That is the ONLY thing that is important about it.

I don't have much time lately to peruse this message board, and therefore I am just noticing and commenting on this thread.

I want to say that I emphatically disagree with your argument above.

I am quite familiar with it. I have listened to many of its proponents give it their "best shot" in attempting to persuade others of its legitimacy. Far from being persuaded by such arguments, I consider them seriously flawed, and even (in many instances, at least) ill-intentioned. For example, rather than believing him (and others like him) to be simply naive or sincerely, albeit mistakenly, motivated, I consider John Dehlin to be a conscious and deliberate "fifth columnist" working from within the body of the church to erode faith. I believe he understands completely what he is doing. In my judgment, the approach he advocates effectively constitutes a "way station" on the road from doubt to complete apostasy. Therefore I consider him and those like him to be wolves in sheep's clothing; enemies of the restored gospel who should be so identified and their ideas strenuously opposed.

[mysteryman]

[name=paulpatter' date='11 September 2009 - 02:37 PM' timestamp='1252701424' post='1208717134]

In explaining the position of those who reject the BoM as history--a position to which you seem to be sympathetic--perhaps you should have considered the possibility that God created a storyline and used Joseph Smith to implement it; hence "conspiracy." My point in raising that possibility is that it weakens the position (including your own) of those who say the BoM is fiction but that Joseph Smith and the book were Deity directed.

Yes, according to this view God inspired the story of the BoM. But it wans't some fraudulent "conspiracy." Its like a long parable, or were parable's a conspiracy of Jesus and God? I understand that its a hard position to defend, in much the same way I think modern apologists throwing out the words of the prophets to create a new understanding of the Book of Mormon is also hard to defend.

And so, by extension, God restored his Church in this dispensation through the instrumentality of a work of fiction presented to the world as legitimate history. Astonishing. Imagine how all those missionaries (50,000-60,000?) will feel when they learn--under your scenario--that the BoM is a fraud.

I am not sure why you insist on calling it a fraud, those that hold this view do not believe it a fraud and some hate the word fiction as well. They believe it to be a divinely ispired book of scripture plain and simple. Well imagine how those same missionaries feel when they learn the apologists view: The prophets were wrong about the hill Cumorah; God, Joseph Smith, and Moroni were wrong that the book is a history of THE American Indians without qualification of only few Indians who might have some ancient Lamanite blood in them; that God's mission to the Lamanites and establishment of Zion on the borders of the Lamanites is actually false since they weren't actually Lamanites anyhow; that the Zelph story is isn't true; that the promises of a choice land wasn't in fact the United States, but rather Central America; etc, etc. It is hypocritical for apologists to say that the prophets have been wrong on all these things but that those of the inspired scripture view can't say the prophets were wrong on historicity as well. It is also hypocritical to say that certain stories of the Bible can be non-historical but not hold the same standard for the BoM.

Sorry, no retraction will be necessary:

During [the] early period [of translating], Joseph would first copy some of the characters directly from the plates [underlining added] onto sheets of paper, from which sheets he would then translate his transcribed characters into English by means of the Urim and Thummim. During such a process, the plates were uncovered while Joseph translated (or at least while he copied the characters from the plates to paper. . . "). (Royal Skousen, "Joseph Smith's Translation of the Book of Mormon: Evidence for Tight Control of the Text," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Volume 7, Issue 1, 1998)

Your unqualified statement that the plates were not used in the translation process is conjecture because even the Church does not know the methodology. In 1993, Elder Russell M. Nelson stated that "[t]he details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known" (http://en.fairmormon...nslation_method).

Again, do you have a witness, other than Royal Skousen's guess, that saw Joseph using the plates during translation? Emma Smith, David Whitmer, Isaac Hale, and Martin Harris all said the he translated without the plates using only his seer stone in his hat. Do you, or do you not, have a witness that says they saw Joseph using the plates during translation?

I am still curious about what you meant that the KJV is a copy of a copy of a copy.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Again, do you have a witness, other than Royal Skousen's guess, that saw Joseph using the plates during translation? Emma Smith, David Whitmer, Isaac Hale, and Martin Harris all said the he translated without the plates using only his seer stone in his hat. Do you, or do you not, have a witness that says they saw Joseph using the plates during translation?

One interesting clue comes from Joseph's description of Moroni's title page as being found on the last leaf of the plates (before the sealed portion, anyway).

The earlier accounts that mention a curtain separating Joseph from the scribe make one wonder why the need? Maybe Joseph had some manuscript hiding back there or something. But the problem is the screen disappears around the time they resumed translation after the loss of the 116 pages. We have William Smith describing the breastplate as having a mechanism that held the spectacles up to JS's eyes so he could hold the plates and read at the same time through the interpreters. We also have Martin Harris taking copies of the chatacters and a translation to Prof. Charles Anthon. It appears that early on JS used the plates directly, copying characters from them and then translating. This is mostly based on a composite of several witness statements, as well as evidence like the curtain, the warning not to allow anyone to see the plates, and so forth. As time went on JS no longer used the plates (out in the open at least) and relied on the seer stone in the hat according to most witness statements. But what was seen in the stone? Only JS knew for sure. Even witnesses who speculate about what he saw don't attribute their description to Joseph Smith. Remarkably not one of them said anything like "Joseph described it like this..." So we have to be careful with the witness statements. None of the witnesses would have seen the plates out in the open with Joseph reading from them to interpret. (There is one second-hand report from Oliver Cowdery that says JS placed the seer stone directly over the plates and translated that way, but it is a late account, and again, Oliver wouldn't have seen the plates by that point, so that knowledge was either muddled over the years (it was written down in 1907 I believe) or JS described that method to Oliver.

The biggest thing we might learn from the statements of the witnesses is how the translation process itself seemed to undergo changes over time, become more refined, or at least more portable and comfortable. Hopefully getting all of the known accounts together will give is a better way to analyze.

[paulpatter]

I don't have much time lately to peruse this message board, and therefore I am just noticing and commenting on this thread.

I want to say that I emphatically disagree with your argument above.

I am quite familiar with it. I have listened to many of its proponents give it their "best shot" in attempting to persuade others of its legitimacy. Far from being persuaded by such arguments, I consider them seriously flawed, and even (in many instances, at least) ill-intentioned. For example, rather than believing him (and others like him) to be simply naive or sincerely, albeit mistakenly, motivated, I consider John Dehlin to be a conscious and deliberate "fifth columnist" working from within the body of the church to erode faith. I believe he understands completely what he is doing. In my judgment, the approach he advocates effectively constitutes a "way station" on the road from doubt to complete apostasy. Therefore I consider him and those like him to be wolves in sheep's clothing; enemies of the restored gospel who should be so identified and their ideas strenuously opposed.

This is "smack on," and I commend you for posting it (although I don't know anything about John Dehlin in particular). Those who claim that the BoM is a work of fiction, while simultaneously declaring that Joseph Smith was, indeed, a prophet called by God to found a church, are saying--in effect--that millions of faithful LDS have been duped lo these many years. How so? If the events described in the book are only imaginary, the credibility of the Church itself is gravely imperiled.

It's clear that at least some who denigrate the historicity of the BoM seek nothing less than the destruction of the Church--and, yes, they should be "strenuously opposed."

[paulpatter]

[name=paulpatter' date='11 September 2009 - 02:37 PM' timestamp='1252701424' post='1208717134]

Yes, according to this view God inspired the story of the BoM. But it wans't some fraudulent "conspiracy." Its like a long parable, or were parable's a conspiracy of Jesus and God? I understand that its a hard position to defend, in much the same way I think modern apologists throwing out the words of the prophets to create a new understanding of the Book of Mormon is also hard to defend.

So, according to the "parable theory," every president of the Church to the present day has perpetuated--in inspired, solemn testimony--what must be characterized as a falsehood; i.e., the BoM is a true account of real people known as Nephites and Lamanites who lived many hundreds of years ago in ancient America. LDS missionaries have been part of the fable, as have thousands of Church leaders and teachers at stake, ward, and branch levels. LDS archaelogists and other scientists who have made numerous trips (some BYU and Church funded) to areas where the N/L civilizations are thought to have existed were on wild goose chases.

There is nothing--not a word--in the introduction to the BoM or within the book proper to suggest that the account is a parable. Nor is there anything in the D&C to support that notion; quite the opposite. President Benson writes: "By His own mouth He has borne witness that it [boM] is true (D&C 17:6); that it contains the truth and His words (D&C 19:26); that is was translated by power from on high (D&C 20); that it contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 20:9, 42:12); that it was given by inspiration and confirmed by the ministering of angels (D&C 20:10); that it gives evidence that the holy scriptures are true (D&C 20:11); and that those who receive it in faith shall receive eternal life (D&C 20:14)." (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 52)

: I am not sure why you insist on calling it a fraud, those that hold this view do not believe it a fraud and some hate the word fiction as well.

fraud: "an act of deceiving or misrepresenting" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed.).

: They believe it to be a divinely ispired book of scripture plain and simple. Well imagine how those same missionaries feel when they learn the apologists view: The prophets were wrong about the hill Cumorah; God, Joseph Smith, and Moroni were wrong that the book is a history of THE American Indians without qualification of only few Indians who might have some ancient Lamanite blood in them; that God's mission to the Lamanites and establishment of Zion on the borders of the Lamanites is actually false since they weren't actually Lamanites anyhow; that the Zelph story is isn't true; that the promises of a choice land wasn't in fact the United States, but rather Central America; etc, etc. It is hypocritical for apologists to say that the prophets have been wrong on all these things but that those of the inspired scripture view can't say the prophets were wrong on historicity as well. It is also hypocritical to say that certain stories of the Bible can be non-historical but not hold the same standard for the BoM.

Obviously, none of this matters because it's all part of a "parable." No need to trouble yourself about it.

: Again, do you have a witness, other than Royal Skousen's guess, that saw Joseph using the plates during translation? Emma Smith, David Whitmer, Isaac Hale, and Martin Harris all said the he translated without the plates using only his seer stone in his hat. Do you, or do you not, have a witness that says they saw Joseph using the plates during translation?

No, I do not. You might, however, consider the words of Dr. Skousen (he who makes guesses): "[the] witnesses frequently made claims about matters that they themselves could not observe. For instance, some described what they believed Joseph Smith saw in the interpreters; and many claimed that Joseph could not go on until the scribe had written down letter-for-letter what Joseph saw. It turns out that these kinds of claims are not supported by the evidence in the original manuscript. For [such] claims, the witnesses were either offering their own conjectures or perhaps recalling what Joseph might have told them." (From the document cited in my earlier post) Additionally, the fact that the Church has not taken a position on the translation methodology should tell you something.

: I am still curious about what you meant that the KJV is a copy of a copy of a copy.

I did not mean to say that the KJV itself had been copied over and over again (though I suppose I gave that impression). My point was that the KJV was the result--with refinements, obviously--of a long history of manuscript copying. For a timeline, enter "English Bible History" into your search engine.

[mfbukowski]

I don't have much time lately to peruse this message board, and therefore I am just noticing and commenting on this thread.

I want to say that I emphatically disagree with your argument above.

I am quite familiar with it. I have listened to many of its proponents give it their "best shot" in attempting to persuade others of its legitimacy. Far from being persuaded by such arguments, I consider them seriously flawed, and even (in many instances, at least) ill-intentioned. For example, rather than believing him (and others like him) to be simply naive or sincerely, albeit mistakenly, motivated, I consider John Dehlin to be a conscious and deliberate "fifth columnist" working from within the body of the church to erode faith. I believe he understands completely what he is doing. In my judgment, the approach he advocates effectively constitutes a "way station" on the road from doubt to complete apostasy. Therefore I consider him and those like him to be wolves in sheep's clothing; enemies of the restored gospel who should be so identified and their ideas strenuously opposed.

Before I get accused of believing all kinds of things I don't believe let me say that my position is that I believe the BOM to be historical but I don't think that it can be proven in a scientific sense to be so, short of massive archaeological evidence including Egyptian inscriptions. I need to state that clearly. And of course historicity has nothing to do with spiritual value or "truth".

That said, I must say I disagree with you on your opinion stated above.

Most Mormons for some reason think that the "direction of travel" in belief in these matters flows from a naive belief in total historicity to initial doubt perhaps after discovering a lack of archaeological evidence, then rationalization with a strengthened belief in revelation or some sort of "catalyst" or "expanded" view of translation, to eventual apostasy and perhaps even atheism based on a total loss of belief.

But as a convert, I find that my path and others I know reverse this direction. Starting from atheism, I started with a philosophical understanding of what rationality could and could not do, to an affirmation of the possibility of spiritual experience which led to a strong spiritual testimony of the BOM with no rational belief whatsoever that such a story could ever have literally happened. As a Pragmatist though, I saw the strength of the fact that belief in the BOM "worked". Now as I see more evidence of historicity, the work of Bokovoy and others, I am becoming more and more convinced of the historicy of the BOM.

So though I cannot comment on Dehlin because I don't know his work, I can see that there is room for those in the church who do NOT believe in BOM historicity and would like to suggest that this postion can be as much a "way station" INTO the church for those who are intellectually inclined as well as OUT OF the church.

I know of no case of anyone who is an active believing member who does not believe in BOM historicity being disciplined, or I don't recall BOM historicity being on a temple recommend interview. There is plenty of room in the church for a wide range of opinions on this point.

[mfbukowski]

It's clear that at least some who denigrate the historicity of the BoM seek nothing less than the destruction of the Church--and, yes, they should be "strenuously opposed."

So why aren't they disciplined for apostasy? Perhaps your position is more strenuous than the church's position.

Edit: And ironically, you do not believe in the historicity of the bible.

[mysteryman]

[name=paulpatter' date='11 September 2009 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1252726988' post='1208717298]

So, according to the "parable theory," every president of the Church to the present day has perpetuated--in inspired, solemn testimony--what must be characterized as a falsehood; i.e., the BoM is a true account of real people known as Nephites and Lamanites who lived many hundreds of years ago in ancient America. LDS missionaries have been part of the fable, as have thousands of Church leaders and teachers at stake, ward, and branch levels. LDS archaelogists and other scientists who have made numerous trips (some BYU and Church funded) to areas where the N/L civilizations are thought to have existed were on wild goose chases.

You said this when asked about Noah's flood:

Thank you for the questions. I regard much of what is written in the OT as storytelling and theater. It's important to remember (seems to me) that the King James version is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, ad infinitum. Then, too, as Latter-day Saints, we have an "out": Article 8 of the Articles of Faith.

On the other hand, anything is possible with God; we need to keep that in mind.

I hope this is helpful, even though it isn't as specific as you may have liked.

All the best.

Well the Church has consistently taught in publications and statements from the pulpit that Noah's flood is literal and global. Are they wrong? Many apologists seem to think so. So do you hold the same standard for believing in the literal global flood as believing in BoM historicity? Prophets, God, Moroni, and Joseph Smith also consistenlty teach the Lamanites are ancestors to the American Indians without any silly qualification of there is only small little traces of possible Lamanite blood found in some Indians. Are they wrong? Many apologists think so. When Prophets have addressed the location of the Hill Cumorah they have consistently placed it in New York. Are they wrong? Many apologists think so. Maybe you are one of the few Mormon defenders on this board that places the statements of the Prophets over apologists, but most here look to apologists as having greater authority than the Prophets on such matters.

There is nothing--not a word--in the introduction to the BoM or within the book proper to suggest that the account is a parable. Nor is there anything in the D&C to support that notion; quite the opposite. President Benson writes: "By His own mouth He has borne witness that it [boM] is true (D&C 17:6); that it contains the truth and His words (D&C 19:26); that is was translated by power from on high (D&C 20); that it contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 20:9, 42:12); that it was given by inspiration and confirmed by the ministering of angels (D&C 20:10); that it gives evidence that the holy scriptures are true (D&C 20:11); and that those who receive it in faith shall receive eternal life (D&C 20:14)." (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 52)

Well my LDS published BoM still says the Lamanites are the "principle" ancestor of the American Indians. Is this correct? There is not word in the BoM or D&C to suggest that the Lamanites were some small minority surrounded by Asians and that there blood line has been basically lost through inter-breeding with Asians. There is not one word to suggest that the word "Lamanite" would apply to anybody that is not a descendant of the Isrealites. Not one word from the D&C or BoM would support that the flood was not global; nor is there one word to support that anything recorded in the Bible is "theater." Not even the notion that the Bible isn't translated correctly and that some truths were taken out would suggest "theater" or "storytelling." Nothing in Benson's quote here says anything about literal history, I would find a different one, I'm sure there are many. Those of the inspired scripture view would agree and not find one thing wrong with this quote. I have a Benson quote for you that will help you:

I hold in my hand one of the sacred volumes of scripture which we as Latter-day Saints love-the Book of Mormon. It is a companion volume to the Bible. It is the sacred record, an inspired record, of the people who lived on this hemisphere between the period roughly six hundred years before Christ and four hundred years after Christ-a thousand-year history. It substantiates the Bible. It is an added witness to the divine mission of the Christ who appeared on this hemisphere as a resurrected being. It tells of the wars and the contention and the strife, the wickedness and the righteousness of the people who lived here, of which the American Indians are but a remnant. I commend it to you, my brothers and sisters and friends, as a new witness for Christ. I commend it to you as a new volume of scripture, written and translated under the inspiration of heaven by a young prophet of God who knew nothing in the field of languages or history. A farm boy who under the inspiration of heaven translated this sacred record so that we have it today as an added witness to the divine mission of the Master, and an added witness to the divinity of the Holy Bible. (Short Hills, New Jersey, 15 January 1961.)[Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg. 47]

So yes, Benson said it was literal. But he also said it was a history of the people of this hemisphere, not just a small tribe that lived here, but THE PEOPLE of this hemisphere and that the Indians are a remnant. Is he correct? Modern apologists don't think so.

fraud: "an act of deceiving or misrepresenting" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed.).

So, did God, Joseph Smith, and Moroni committ a fraudulent act by deceiving us that the American Indians are descendents of the Lamanites? Have we been fraudulently led to believe the Hill Cumorah is in New York? Have we been deceived into thinking the global flood is literal? According to you these Prophets are frauds I guess. Unless you are one of the few that accepts the words of the prophets over the authority of the apologists.

Obviously, none of this matters because it's all part of a "parable." No need to trouble yourself about it.

I'm not troubles by it. But is it not hypocritical for apologists to so easily throw away so many of the words of the prophets concerning historical matters when it comes to either the BoM or Bible and then not allow those of the inspired scripture view to do the exact same thing?

No, I do not. You might, however, consider the words of Dr. Skousen (he who makes guesses): "[the] witnesses frequently made claims about matters that they themselves could not observe. For instance, some described what they believed Joseph Smith saw in the interpreters; and many claimed that Joseph could not go on until the scribe had written down letter-for-letter what Joseph saw. It turns out that these kinds of claims are not supported by the evidence in the original manuscript. For [such] claims, the witnesses were either offering their own conjectures or perhaps recalling what Joseph might have told them." (From the document cited in my earlier post)

So we agree, that no witness saw him use the plates. So we agree that those that actually saw him translate said the plates were not present and that he did it by looking into his seer stone in his hat. So I am correct, the plates were not used for the translation. I take that as a concession from you.

Additionally, the fact that the Church has not taken a position on the translation methodology should tell you something.

Not sure what it is supposed to tell me. But, witnesses said he used his seer stone by placing it in his hat, witnesses also said this was his method of looking for buried treasure as well. So we know what would happen today if some nut started saying they could place a magic rock into his hat an find buried treasure and then claim angelic revelation and could use that same magical method to translate ancient documents. We would demand him to be locked up in the funny farm. So it doesn't really shock me that the Church doesn't take an offical position on this issue.

I did not mean to say that the KJV itself had been copied over and over again (though I suppose I gave that impression). My point was that the KJV was the result--with refinements, obviously--of a long history of manuscript copying. For a timeline, enter "English Bible History" into your search engine.

Fair enough, of course modern translations are based on older manuscripts. But your answer the question about Biblical stories was bizarre in trying to suggest that some of the harder stories of the Bible to believe was somehow some transcribal error, there is nothing to suggest that the stories of Noah or Jonah were either trascribed or translated falsely.

[LifeOnaPlate]

FWIW I've never heard Noah's flood depicted as a crucial aspect of our religion, even by those who take it to be a literal global event.

So we agree, that no witness saw him use the plates. So we agree that those that actually saw him translate said the plates were not present and that he did it by looking into his seer stone in his hat. So I am correct, the plates were not used for the translation. I take that as a concession from you.

This is simply fallacious. Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. And you seem to be overlooking my posts.

[William Schryver]

Before I get accused of believing all kinds of things I don't believe let me say that my position is that I believe the BOM to be historical but I don't think that it can be proven in a scientific sense to be so, short of massive archaeological evidence including Egyptian inscriptions. I need to state that clearly. And of course historicity has nothing to do with spiritual value or "truth".

That said, I must say I disagree with you on your opinion stated above.

Most Mormons for some reason think that the "direction of travel" in belief in these matters flows from a naive belief in total historicity to initial doubt perhaps after discovering a lack of archaeological evidence, then rationalization with a strengthened belief in revelation or some sort of "catalyst" or "expanded" view of translation, to eventual apostasy and perhaps even atheism based on a total loss of belief.

But as a convert, I find that my path and others I know reverse this direction. Starting from atheism, I started with a philosophical understanding of what rationality could and could not do, to an affirmation of the possibility of spiritual experience which led to a strong spiritual testimony of the BOM with no rational belief whatsoever that such a story could ever have literally happened. As a Pragmatist though, I saw the strength of the fact that belief in the BOM "worked". Now as I see more evidence of historicity, the work of Bokovoy and others, I am becoming more and more convinced of the historicy of the BOM.

So though I cannot comment on Dehlin because I don't know his work, I can see that there is room for those in the church who do NOT believe in BOM historicity and would like to suggest that this postion can be as much a "way station" INTO the church for those who are intellectually inclined as well as OUT OF the church.

I know of no case of anyone who is an active believing member who does not believe in BOM historicity being disciplined, or I don't recall BOM historicity being on a temple recommend interview. There is plenty of room in the church for a wide range of opinions on this point.

After reading your post, I would say that it appears to me that we are in agreement on most of the points you make, rather than the contrary. So perhaps the problem here is that you have misunderstood the thrust of my comments. Of course, my comments were motivated by the topic of this thread--the question of BoM historicity--but what I had to say actually transcends that question and discusses the role and impact of people such as John Dehlin and those who support him and who are influenced by him and the attitudes he advocates.

Dehlin is one of the leaders of a movement taking place largely within the church. But the paths defined by this movement all lead, eventually, away from a belief in the restored gospel.

As one who has followed his career and this movement for several years now, I can confidently state that the inclination to disbelieve in Book of Mormon historicity is the proverbial tip of the iceberg when it comes to these people. Indeed, their disbelief spans the wide gamut of the doctrine, principles, and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, their disbelief, notwithstanding their pretensions to the contrary, is not a silent one. Not hardly. It is advocated, both subtly and otherwise; both publicly and privately. And let there be no mistake about it, the ultimate effect of this movement, were it to gain traction among the Saints, would be to reduce the meaning of the restored gospel to nothing more than mythology on a par with the stories of Zeus and his imaginary comrades in the ancient Greek pantheon. It would, if it could, destroy the Church. And, quite frankly, I believe that Dehlin and a good proportion of those who band around him are very conscious of that reality.

[rockslider]

mfbukowski,

I'd suggest taking statements from William you find offensive with a grain of salt. Apparently he has a closet full of these "inside jokes". He wears one of them as a title under his avatar.

edit:

btw, I started a new thread on this Dehlin issue and hope others will register their thoughts on this issue.

[William Schryver]

mfbukowski,

I'd suggest taking statements from William you find offensive with a grain of salt. Apparently he has a closet full of these "inside jokes". He wears one of them as a title under his avatar.

edit:

btw, I started a new thread on this Dehlin issue and hope others will register their thoughts on this issue.

I don't think you are in a position to speak with authority concerning my closet.

And as for my "title" of "Vulgar Sciolist," there is no joke associated with it at all. Ask anyone.

[mysteryman]

[ name=LifeOnaPlate' date='11 September 2009 - 05:08 PM' timestamp='1252710535' post='1208717215]

One interesting clue comes from Joseph's description of Moroni's title page as being found on the last leaf of the plates (before the sealed portion, anyway).

The earlier accounts that mention a curtain separating Joseph from the scribe make one wonder why the need? Maybe Joseph had some manuscript hiding back there or something. But the problem is the screen disappears around the time they resumed translation after the loss of the 116 pages. We have William Smith describing the breastplate as having a mechanism that held the spectacles up to JS's eyes so he could hold the plates and read at the same time through the interpreters.

Did he say Joseph did this while translating? Did he see Joseph do it while translating? Where is this breastplate?

We also have Martin Harris taking copies of the chatacters and a translation to Prof. Charles Anthon.

I do not see how this is relevant. Joseph gives some characters to take to Prof. Anthon. But did he use the plates while translating? Did anyone see him using them while translating? Everyone that actually saw him translating says they were not present at the time.

It appears that early on JS used the plates directly, copying characters from them and then translating.

Maybe, maybe not. No one saw him use them while translating. Did anyone see him copying these characters from the plates? Where are all the characters he copied to translate other than what was taken to Anthon? Those that saw him translating say the plates were not present, plain and simple.

This is mostly based on a composite of several witness statements, as well as evidence like the curtain, the warning not to allow anyone to see the plates, and so forth.

If no one could see them then there is no witness that saw him use them during the translation. Again, those that actually saw him translating said they were not present.

As time went on JS no longer used the plates (out in the open at least) and relied on the seer stone in the hat according to most witness statements. But what was seen in the stone? Only JS knew for sure. Even witnesses who speculate about what he saw don't attribute their description to Joseph Smith. Remarkably not one of them said anything like "Joseph described it like this..." So we have to be careful with the witness statements. None of the witnesses would have seen the plates out in the open with Joseph reading from them to interpret. (There is one second-hand report from Oliver Cowdery that says JS placed the seer stone directly over the plates and translated that way, but it is a late account, and again, Oliver wouldn't have seen the plates by that point, so that knowledge was either muddled over the years (it was written down in 1907 I believe) or JS described that method to Oliver.

Exaclty, no one saw him use them when he translated.