DBMormon Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 I see several of you on here as proponets of this theory. I have several questions.1.) What does that mean to you? Is it only inspirational, similar to reading nonfiction motivational book? 2.) How do you fit Joseph smith and his motives into this framework?3.) What was God's role in the book? in the restoration?4.) How do you answer the question on "do you have a testimony of the restoration(answer only if willing)? How do you see the restoration differently then one who is a full believer in what the book claims to be?5.) Do you still believe in keys? in temple ordinances? Priesthood? If yes to any of these how did we get them by iniating a fraudulent book?6.) please share any info I should have asked or info you want to add.
David T Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) If yes to any of these how did we get them by iniating a fraudulent book?First you need to recognize that those who hold the BoM to be inspired but not historical don't necessarily view the book as 'fraudulent'. There are many genres of writings in the Bible that we classify as scripture that are definitely not 'historical', including poetry, parable, and, satire. What makes something scripture is not that it is recording the details of a historical event, but rather that it was crafted and created in responses to, and expressing, and hoping to communicate and teach their understanding of their experience of divine revelation or insight. Edited May 31, 2012 by David T 3
Darren10 Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 The Book of Mormon, in my estimation, is first and foremost spiritual and it is also historical. The acounts of the Bok of mormon literally happened and appened for the purpose to instruct man in the ways of God. This is particularly true for use today. I do not think the Book of mormobn is an adequate account to use in academia but it is absolutely historical. Academia's standards are not that of the Lord's. Perhaps this will change perhaps not. Either way does not bother me.For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.(Isaiah 55:9)
HairBear Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 The first question this opinion raises is where did the plates come from? If the BoM is not historical (as in it isn't the writings of a past civilisation), then persumably there were no Nephites, and if there were no Nephites, who made the plates?
Freedom Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 It is not possible to be inspired but not historical. If it is not historical then it is a lie. How can a fictional character appear as an angel and instruct a man? The evidence within the book, also, is too overwhelming to discount it has historical. There are many more critics of the bible that claim it to be a work of fiction so the Book of Mormon is not unique in this respect. I think, however, that you would have a difficult time finding a legitimate historian who determines the Hebrew volume to be one big fable. 2
The Nehor Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 The first question this opinion raises is where did the plates come from? If the BoM is not historical (as in it isn't the writings of a past civilisation), then persumably there were no Nephites, and if there were no Nephites, who made the plates?An aspiring angelic novelist? 1
The Nehor Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 If it is not historical then it is a lie.Are you calling the Savior a liar for telling parables? I agree that the Book of Mormon is either historically accurate or a fraud but that is because it was clearly intended to be taken as historically accurate and God himself in the D&C seems to accept it as actually happening.
Acris Venator Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 All records serve a bias, and are thus limited "histories". Nephi and Jacob are the only sons of Lehi that had a say in the record, so the account is of limited value in arriving at any sort of balanced history of what happened between "the sons of Lehi".Laman's account of events would be of immense value because it would put Nephi's account in relief. Lemuel's, Sam's, and Joseph's versions would also provide several insights. Lehi also had daughters, and Ishmael's children were integral to the formation of both the Nehite and Lamanite factions that started this whole business of the Book of Mormon. Sariah's account might be the most valuable of all because she bore all of Lehi's sons and would be able to give us a "Lucy Mack" version of events.The fact that Smith lost the Book of Lehi hurts our understanding of events.We don't have an "accurate history" of the times of the Book of Mormon. What we have is about a dozen photographs submitted by a particular thread of individuals that lived in a culture of (probably) millions. Plus we have a single tattered daguerreotype (Ether) that was found by the folks who populate the other dozen photographs.The book isn't particularly useful as a history. It's much more valuable for its information concerning the Doctrine of Christ.
Lightbearer Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 If there was no historical Nephites and Lamanites, then how could there be a historical Mormon? Or Moroni? If not why did the Angel call himself Moroni? Or was that fictional too? Those who espouse this idea that the Book of Mormon is not historical in the sense of a real people that travelled to this continitent and experienced those things the prophets recorded are deluded. They cannot have one foot in the world and another in the Church. I am sorry but it does not work. For those who struggle with doubts I suggest try the study and living of the words of the book. Because to say it is spiritually true yet is a holy work of fiction that is not based in reality is a foolish notion, that would be like saying that Joseph Smith did not actually see God and Christ but just "thought he did" and is still a true prophet or that Christ was a great moral and religious teacher yet was lying when He said He was the son of God, or that the Apostles who saw the resurrected Christ, really stole his body and just told an old wives tales that they passed off as scripture. To me such an idea is offensive and apostate in nature. Those who must have "scientific" or historical confirmation are much like Professor Anton who thought he could translate the book without God's help, I think it is made plain by the following: "Then shall the Lord God say unto him: The learned shall not read them, for they have rejected them, and I am able to do mine own work; wherefore thou shalt read the words which I shall give unto thee." (Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 27:20) God is in control, those who must have more proof will never have conclusive proof. God will withold his mysteries from them because they lack faith in Him. It will always allude them unless they try the power of faith and live the Gospel. 1
ERayR Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Saying the Book of Mormon is inspired but not historical is not possible. That is like saying I have a Chevrolet car but General Motors never existed.
altersteve Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 If the Book of Mormon is not historical, then the Restoration is not true.
zerinus Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) First you need to recognize that those who hold the BoM to be inspired but not historical don't necessarily view the book as 'fraudulent'. There are many genres of writings in the Bible that we classify as scripture that are definitely not 'historical', including poetry, parable, and, satire.They are still "historical" insofar as they were written by real people with real names, living in real time and real places, and within a given time frame as suggested in the book. If you think that the Book of Mormon is not "historical," can you explain exactly what you mean by that? Is it poetry? Is it fiction? Is it satire? If it is any of those, who wrote the poetry, fiction, or satire? Was it Mormon? Was it Moroni? Was it Joseph Smith? Was it Spaulding? Was it Sidney Rigdon?What makes something scripture is not that it is recording the details of a historical event, but rather that it was crafted and created in responses to, and expressing, and hoping to communicate and teach their understanding of their experience of divine revelation or insight.Scripture is created when men of God speak as they are "moved upon by the Holy Ghost". It becomes fiction when those people are no longer regarded as real. Edited May 31, 2012 by zerinus
Freedom Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Are you calling the Savior a liar for telling parables? I agree that the Book of Mormon is either historically accurate or a fraud but that is because it was clearly intended to be taken as historically accurate and God himself in the D&C seems to accept it as actually happening.I assume you are being facetious. The parables are clearly fables. The Book of Mormon distinguishes between fables and real events. The real events, of course, are recorded to teach a gospel principles rather than to present an objective historical analysis of the events themselves. Key components of the events are left out if they do not support the underlying doctrine being taught. The story of Nephi and Laban is written for a specific purpose, outlaying and justifying Nephi's ascension as leader of his group. The creation story in the bible covers doctrine such as marriage covenants and economy rather than the science behind how we came to be. It is still a real event, but not recorded as a historical record. The book of Mormon authors clearly distinguish between the historical records and the religions records.
The Nehor Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 I assume you are being facetious.This is generally the best policy.
cinepro Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) The first question this opinion raises is where did the plates come from? If the BoM is not historical (as in it isn't the writings of a past civilisation), then persumably there were no Nephites, and if there were no Nephites, who made the plates?The second question being where did the plates go?If plates, in and of themselves, vouched for the truthfulness of a work, then the Kinderhook Plates would be more true than the Book of Mormon, since we still have them. Edited May 31, 2012 by cinepro
Buzzard Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 If the Book of Mormon is not historical, then the Restoration is not true.Amen. Lucky for us, it is.
cinepro Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Laman's account of events would be of immense value because it would put Nephi's account in relief.Ask and ye shall receive...? 1
cinepro Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 If the Book of Mormon is not historical, then the Restoration is not true.How about we say if the Book of Mormon is not "historical", then the Restoration is not what we thought it was?I can understand the impulse to say that the Book of Mormon is historical because it has to be historical, but it's possible there are other ways to look at it that allow for a little more flexibility.For example, most Old Testament scholars (and Internet Mormons) would probably say that the story of the Tower of Babel isn't "historical" as commonly understood. But the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches a very literal, historical Tower of Babel with added support from the Book of Mormon:For some in the modern world, the historicity of the tower of Babel story, as with the Flood, is often discounted. One modern school of thought considers the account to be nothing more than an “artful parable” and an “old tale.”11 But Latter-day Saints accept the story as it is presented in Genesis. Further, we have the second witness of the Book of Mormon. The title page of the Book of Mormon explains that the book of Ether “is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven.” The book of Ether itself then tells of when “Jared came forth with his brother and their families, with some others and their families, from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth” (Ether 1:33).So, could it be argued that if the Tower of Babel isn't "historical", then the Book of Ether isn't "historical"? Or is there a point where we allow for allegory in place of what once seemed "historical"? And while we may not be able to fathom a non-historical Book of Mormon in the context of modern-day LDS teachings, who knows what the mindset may be for LDS 50 or 100 years from now? 1
Buzzard Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Ask and ye shall receive...?Thanks. I guess my scripture reading quota for the day is filled.
Libs Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 I see several of you on here as proponets of this theory. I have several questions.1.) What does that mean to you? Is it only inspirational, similar to reading nonfiction motivational book?For me, it means that the book's author (whomever that was) could have been inspired by God. It's not like just an ordinary motivational book...more like parts of the Bible, that are inspired poetry and parables, etc., but not, necessarily, true history. 2.) How do you fit Joseph smith and his motives into this framework?Really not sure. He could have been a prophet or he could have been just a man who received some inspiration here and there.3.) What was God's role in the book? in the restoration?I think God definitely inspired some of it. Not sure about the restoration....maybe, maybe not?4.) How do you answer the question on "do you have a testimony of the restoration(answer only if willing)? How do you see the restoration differently then one who is a full believer in what the book claims to be?I'm not active LDS, so I don't feel pressured to "know" anything about any of this. I just accept and appreciate what I can. 5.) Do you still believe in keys? in temple ordinances? Priesthood? If yes to any of these how did we get them by iniating a fraudulent book?Weren't the restoration of the keys, priesthood and temple ordinances all separate events? They are all potentially "real" events. But, I don't claim to know, for sure, about any of it.6.) please share any info I should have asked or info you want to add.I started struggling with some church issues about four years ago...mainly polygamy and Book of Abraham...but, I still had this "testimony" of the Book of Mormon, and some very real spiritual experiences around that book, so wasn't sure how to integrate that with the other struggles. I finally stopped trying, and just accepted that God did speak to me through the Book of Mormon, and it's okay to accept that..and still have questions about all the rest. Sounds very up in the air, I know, but that's where I am with the church, right now. 1
Freedom Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 For example, most Old Testament scholars (and Internet Mormons) would probably say that the story of the Tower of Babel isn't "historical" as commonly understood. But the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches a very literal, historical Tower of Babel with added support from the Book of Mormon:I think that some scholars consider that the Tower of Babel was not as mystical and global as many assume. The common conclusion is that the scattering was caused by a famine or some other catastrophe and, as a result of the scattering, the civilization could not maintain the same language over time. Some argue that this story is the beginning of new languages but the story itself never makes this claim. Unfortunately, our interpretation of ancient records is hindered by our own biases and ignorance.
DBMormon Posted June 1, 2012 Author Posted June 1, 2012 First you need to recognize that those who hold the BoM to be inspired but not historical don't necessarily view the book as 'fraudulent'. but can you concede these are 2 different records and one leaves room to have parts not be historical while the other due to how it came forth requires at worst an exaggeration of historical truth.It is not possible to be inspired but not historical.Then How am I inspired by Charles ****ens "A Christmas Carol"?
David T Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 For some of what guides my perspective on this, please check out this post about an enlightening experience in my past: The Catalyst Theory, Or How Marilyn Manson Caused Me To Write the Story of the Restoration
Recommended Posts