How Can The Bom Be Inspired But Not Historical

[DBMormon]

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Libs really love and appreciated your answers. Was hoping you and others who think this way would share your feelings and insights. You have my respect.

For me it is all or nothing, but I see where your coming from and appreciate it. Also I join with you in finding spiritual experiences wrapped up in the BOM

[Libs]

Thanks, reelmormon.

David, that was an interesting story! Does seem that you were receiving some kind of revelation, early on, doesn't it? Very interesting.

[Libs]

Reelmormon, you might find Dr. Samuelson's testimony, on "Mormon Scholar's Testify", interesting. He seems to question or, at least, is open to the possibility that the Book of Mormon is not real history.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57934-eric-samuelsen/page__pid__1209126958#entry1209126958

[Robert F. Smith]

Here is an anonymous essay (with my corrections added):

"Comparing the Power of Fiction in Canterbury Tales and Lord of the Flies," 123HelpMe.com, June 1, 2012, online at http://www.123HelpMe.com/view.asp?id=15627 .

“The Power of Fiction Revealed in Canterbury Tales and Lord of the Flies,”

In accordance with E.M. Forster's analysis of a character's hidden life, a work of fiction gives us a better insight into the theme of a novel. As E.M. Forster said, "Fiction is truer than history, for it is in fiction [and drama] that we can understand the hidden life of the characters." History is the study of past events. It is based mostly on fact, accepted concepts and stories. Fiction is a literary genre in which the author writes about untrue events. The telling of historical events in a book limits a reader's ability to expand on the text because it is a text based on textual references from the past. Fiction, on the other hand, sets no boundaries for the reader. In fictional literature the reader can expand and point his own picture in his mind without having to question his own creativity. In "The Canterbury Tales" by Geoffrey Chaucer, the use of type casting in the direct and indirect characterization of the pilgrims shows us their true personalities. While Chaucer uses characterization to reveal his characters. William Golding in his novel, The Lord of the Flies writes through allegorical writing which uses symbolism to portray a bigger meaning than the story's plot.

In "The Canterbury Tales" written by Geoffrey Chaucer, the pilgrims are characterized in two different ways to reveal their real intentions. "The Pardoner's Tale" is told by a Pardoner who is characterized in the prologue as selling fake relics. He than in his own tale goes on to denounce greed. By stating the pardoner's own selfishness it contradicts his own religious state in life. A Pardoner forgives others sins, but one with already too much load on his soul would not be able to do that. The Pardoner thinks himself to be a very holy and righteous man but does not realize that his own greed is seen by all the pilgrims after he admits selling fake relics. That makes his sermon of how "Greed is the root of all evil" a total hypocrisy. Chaucer purposely chose a member of a religious community to write a tale on because he wanted to write about unfaithful who sold indulgences to people. Those religious abused their powers given to them by the Church for their own financial gain by using people's blind faith as a tool. In turn the whole setting of a religious pilgrimage adds further insult and shame to the Pardoner's character. By writing about the events and problems of his time period, Chaucer provides great insight into a time when corruption ran rampant in the Church. That called for grave help. Chaucer's seemingly first hand account provides a window of knowledge to readers many generations later. That very personal window gives us a lucid interpretation which is not just truer but more entertaining to read than the cold impersonal pages of a history textbook. That close insight on people is also seen in William Golding's The Lord of the Flies, when pre-adolescent boys crash on an unchartered island during WWII and must struggle between civilization and savagery.

The Lord of the Flies by William Golding is a prime example of a piece of literature that shows us the point of view a history book can not. The overall theme of the novel is "civilization versus savagery" and it utilizes several symbols to portray that deeper meaning. The three main characters: Ralph, Piggy, and Jack are used to portray the three states of mind on the island. Ralph being the leader and charismatic one represents the "good" or sane mind. Jack, on the other hand, depicts the "evil" side who gives into his own selfish desires. Finally, Piggy is the logical and intellectual one that calls for order. Although he is the most qualified one to be leader his appearance makes him a mockery. Each of the three symbolically plays their individual roles to portray man's struggle between good and evil. What happens on the island can even be parallel to human behavior in general. A history book would be unable to touch upon human behavior because it is too broad and skeptical of a subject. The feelings of the person are irrelevant to the event.

In conclusion, both The Lord of the Flies and "The Canterbury Tales" are excellent examples of literature that is truer than history. By telling it in a way a history book would never and expanding on a time period by talking about its people, William Golding and Geoffrey Chaucer have shown us the bigger picture in each of their novels. Thus doing exactly what E.M. Forster said fiction was.

[Libs]

Do you believe the Book of Mormon is fiction, Robert?

Very interesting essay. Thanks for sharing that.

[Robert F. Smith]

It is not possible to be inspired but not historical. If it is not historical then it is a lie.

Sometimes people raise such questions about the nature of the parables of Jesus: Are they factually true accounts? Or are they allegories? Even the D&C claims some images in Scripture to be figurative (II Nephi 16:2,6-7 = Isaiah 6:2,6-7, Revelation 10:1-10, Book of Abraham facsimiles 1 - 3; D&C 77:2-4,14, 88:45). Certainly poetry is not always meant to be taken literally.

The same applies to historical fiction, in which an author does a lot of research on the people and period of his novel, and then writes what he imagines they were like and what they did in the midst of real events. For example, some scholars think that Josephus' account of the battle of Masada is true in its basic facts, but that he put his own heroic words in the mouths of the Jewish defenders -- who all committed suicide, and so were not available to tell Josephus what had transpired in their last hours. Some have suggested that editor Mormon did the same for various characters in the Book of Mormon. The same question applies to Plato's version of what Socrates did and said: Did Plato provide verbatim accounts of all those conversations?

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.

Plenty of major, legitimate historians maintain a "minimalist" position on certain features of biblical history, i.e., they do not accept as true the Primeval History of the Bible (Creation, Flood, Tower, etc.), do not accept the reality of God, angels, Abraham, Moses, the Exodus, etc. And, even when they accept the historical existence of someone, they reject the basic stories associated with them. For example, they say that David & Solomon may have existed, but they were merely chiefs with petty chiefdoms -- nothing on the magnificent scale described by the Bible, which they say is an Exilic retrojection of information about later kings of Judah and Israel. Likewise, although Jesus undoubtedly existed and was a great Jewish rabbi, they claim that there was no resurrection from the dead, and he did not claim to be the Messiah -- suggesting that Paul created Christianity.

[Robert F. Smith]

Do you believe the Book of Mormon is fiction, Robert?

No. I believe that the Book of Mormon is historically factual, even if editor Mormon sometimes possibly put words in the mouths of some of the long dead characters (a matter for speculation).

[Robert F. Smith]

. . . 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:

Quote

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"?

The problem, as you may notice, is that the Book of Mormon doesn't actually say "Tower of Babel." It says "Great Tower." The word "Babel" is considered by most biblical scholars to be an Exilic or Post-Exilic glosse on the original story about a great ziggurat somewhere in Mesopotamia. Thus, in this and many other cases, the Book of Mormon eschews the reediting of Scripture which took place during the Babylonian Exile or shortly thereafter. What actually took place at that ziggurat and what happened to the Jaredites (Hebrew* Yordim "Those-who-descended [-from-the-tower]") is another matter.

* Jared = Hebrew Yared "He-who-descended."

Edited June 2, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Cobalt-70]

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, the Book of Mormon is just as scriptural as anything in the Bible, and in most cases, even more so. It is the word of God. But it's the fictional word of God, told opaquely and imperfectly by a mortal prophet, like the Genesis myths, or the book of Job. As far as its ranking in value as scripture, I put the doctrinal elements of the Book of Mormon just one step below the actual words of Jesus in the New Testament.

2.) How do you fit Joseph smith and his motives into this framework?

Joseph Smith honestly (in my view) believed he was dictating a history of the Indians. But he was mistaken. God worked through him in a way he didn't understand. Joseph Smith was an ideal vessel for this work because he had a brilliant and imaginative mind, an amazing memory, a susceptibility towards visions and dreams, a conflicted Christian background, and a belief in magic. At the same time, this work could not have happened at any other time or place in world history.

3.) What was God's role in the book? in the restoration?

God enlightened Joseph Smith's mind, and allowed a God-inspired modern work of scripture to emerge from Smith's subconscious mind.

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?

Absolutely yes. The only difference is that I think Joseph Smith was restoring universal ideals and truths, rather than restoring a lost history of the Indians.

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?

Yes, Yes, and Yes. As discussed above, I do not believe the Book of Mormon was fraudulent.

6.) please share any info I should have asked or info you want to add.

Assume, for a moment, that the Book of Mormon contained only its doctrines and teachings, but said nothing about Lamanites, wars, civilizations, mystery animals, mystery metals, etc. How would Mormonism be different? Its fundamentals would be exactly the same. So I don't consider the historicity of the Book of Mormon to be an essential element of Mormonism.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Log]

.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Log

[Libs]

No. I believe that the Book of Mormon is historically factual, even if editor Mormon sometimes possibly put words in the mouths of some of the long dead characters (a matter for speculation).

Hmmm, interesting possibility. Thanks for the response.

[mbh26]

Assume, for a moment, that the Book of Mormon contained only its doctrines and teachings, but said nothing about Lamanites, wars, civilizations, mystery animals, mystery metals, etc. How would Mormonism be different. Its fundamentals would be exactly the same. So I don't consider the historicity of the Book of Mormon to be an essential element of Mormonism.

I think a nonhistorical Book of Mormon will be just as easy of a transition for the church as people realizing that the Bible is not as historical as we were once led to believe.

[DBMormon]

If the BOM is not based on a real plates and a real people's history, then it's doctrines are simply a guess at truth. They may be inspirational and false. Or by luck's chance perhaps true in what they teach or maybe some true and some false... it's a crapshoot. In order for them to be a second witness of Christ they have to be based on a real record like Joseph said.

Edited June 3, 2012 by reelmormon

[Libs]

I think one must have a spiritual testimony....of "something". Either direct revelation on these various subjects or a testimony from God that it is all true, so that one can lean on the revelation/testimony of Joseph Smith and other leaders of the LDS Church.

Trying to figure it all out on a strictly intellectual basis, doesn't work, IMO.

[DBMormon]

Libs, your right.... Too much info on both sides of the fence...listen to the spirit

[Robert F. Smith]

I think a nonhistorical Book of Mormon will be just as easy of a transition for the church as people realizing that the Bible is not as historical as we were once led to believe.

Except that those religious groups which have opted for a more or less fictional Bible are withering away. The same thing has happened to the RLDS Church (now the Community of Christ) in its opting for a Book of Mormon which is seen to contain some universal truths, but which is not historically true. The only transition in those cases is to secularism and empty churches. Perhaps something like Confucianism or humanism could be an acceptable alternative.

[why me]

If the book of mormon did not have a truth claim, it would be a very inspired piece of work. Certainly, if it weren't classified as historical but a piece of fiction, it would be an inspired piece of fiction. If this book was written by a 19th century individual just for the sake of getting people to think about their own salvation, it would be considered inspired. And if this book was written by an individual, that individual certainly knew their bible and most likely, would be a religious scholar.

However, since it is listed as historical scripture, it needs to be looked at as either true or false, historical inspired or a fraud.

[Storm Rider]

I cannot separate the truth of the Book of Mormon from his historicity. Fortunately, I have never heard an argument or criticiam that caused me to doubt either one about the Book of Mormon. I guess it is just too easy to not put faith in the arm of flesh. I have been around humans for far too long to put any credance in their ability to really know something. Science is an incredible adventure in trying to find out why things are the way they are. It just so happens that the more we learn the more we understand how little we know. Science is not an instrument of knowing truth, but it is a process of learning about how God works.

[altersteve]

For me, the Book of Mormon is just as scriptural as anything in the Bible, and in most cases, even more so. It is the word of God. But it's the fictional word of God, told opaquely and imperfectly by a mortal prophet, like the Genesis myths, or the book of Job. As far as its ranking in value as scripture, I put the doctrinal elements of the Book of Mormon just one step below the actual words of Jesus in the New Testament.

Joseph Smith honestly (in my view) believed he was dictating a history of the Indians. But he was mistaken. God worked through him in a way he didn't understand. Joseph Smith was an ideal vessel for this work because he had a brilliant and imaginative mind, an amazing memory, a susceptibility towards visions and dreams, a conflicted Christian background, and a belief in magic. At the same time, this work could not have happened at any other time or place in world history.

God enlightened Joseph Smith's mind, and allowed a God-inspired modern work of scripture to emerge from Smith's subconscious mind.

Absolutely yes. The only difference is that I think Joseph Smith was restoring universal ideals and truths, rather than restoring a lost history of the Indians.

Yes, Yes, and Yes. As discussed above, I do not believe the Book of Mormon was fraudulent.

Assume, for a moment, that the Book of Mormon contained only its doctrines and teachings, but said nothing about Lamanites, wars, civilizations, mystery animals, mystery metals, etc. How would Mormonism be different? Its fundamentals would be exactly the same. So I don't consider the historicity of the Book of Mormon to be an essential element of Mormonism.

Joseph Smith said Moroni told him that the Book of Mormon is a history of the Indians. Was Moroni lying? Was Joseph?

[why me]

Joseph Smith said Moroni told him that the Book of Mormon is a history of the Indians. Was Moroni lying? Was Joseph?

I don't think that it was a history of the Indians. More likely judging by the painting, a history of a certain people in mesoamerca. I think that maybe Joseph thought that the indians were related being lamanites. No nephites survived and so all those left were lamanites.

[Cobalt-70]

Except that those religious groups which have opted for a more or less fictional Bible are withering away. The same thing has happened to the RLDS Church (now the Community of Christ) in its opting for a Book of Mormon which is seen to contain some universal truths, but which is not historically true. The only transition in those cases is to secularism and empty churches. Perhaps something like Confucianism or humanism could be an acceptable alternative.

I don't believe all these dire predictions about the decline of the LDS Church as it naturally reaches a state of peaceful coexistence with modern science. The LDS Church has something that the Community of Christ never had: culture and "wierdness." The only way the LDS Church will follow in the steps of the Community of Christ is if it starts to become too much like any other Christian church. Becoming an "I'm Christian too" religion may stop some of the bleeding in the short term, but could be disastrous in the long run.

The LDS Church has tremendous doctrinal and historical resources that it could bring to bear, with which it could become the premiere religion of the 21st century. We've got Heavenly Mother. We've got social justice built into the Book of Mormon. We've got a history of magic and mysticism that we've let become dormant. We've got a temple ceremony that currently turns people off to the faith, but with a few tweaks and a little more openness, could become a powerful engine to regenerate the faith. We have a lot of historical baggage, yes, but dormant within our doctrine are also powerful solutions to 21st century problems.

Excessively literal interpretations of the Book of Mormon are not the answer. Not all of the fastest-growing religions these days are of the "science be damn3d" variety. There are many counterexamples, including Wicca, Paganism, deism, and American Buddhism.

Edited June 3, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Joseph Smith said Moroni told him that the Book of Mormon is a history of the Indians. Was Moroni lying? Was Joseph?

When Smith wrote this, it was about 15 years after the vision. How accurately can you remember a dream you had 15 years ago? Smith had lots of time to think about what happened during this vision, and to make sense of it. when he put it to writing in 1838, he explained it in a way that was compatible with 1838 Mormon theology.

[altersteve]

I don't think that it was a history of the Indians. More likely judging by the painting, a history of a certain people in mesoamerca. I think that maybe Joseph thought that the indians were related being lamanites. No nephites survived and so all those left were lamanites.

I agree. What I meant was that Moroni told Joseph that the Book of Mormon is a true history. That's what I tried to emphasize.

[altersteve]

When Smith wrote this, it was about 15 years after the vision. How accurately can you remember a dream you had 15 years ago? Smith had lots of time to think about what happened during this vision, and to make sense of it. when he put it to writing in 1838, he explained it in a way that was compatible with 1838 Mormon theology.

Moroni's visitation wasn't a dream. I believe it was quite real. If an angel appeared to me, I think I'd remember it pretty well 15 years later.

Edited June 3, 2012 by altersteve

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't believe all these dire predictions about the decline of the LDS Church as it naturally reaches a state of peaceful coexistence with modern science. The LDS Church has something that the Community of Christ never had: culture and "wierdness." The only way the LDS Church will follow in the steps of the Community of Christ is if it starts to become too much like any other Christian church. Becoming an "I'm Christian too" religion may stop some of the bleeding in the short term, but could be disastrous in the long run.

The LDS Church has tremendous doctrinal and historical resources that it could bring to bear, with which it could become the premiere religion of the 21st century. We've got Heavenly Mother. We've got social justice built into the Book of Mormon. We've got a history of magic and mysticism that we've let become dormant. We've got a temple ceremony that currently turns people off to the faith, but with a few tweaks and a little more openness, could become a powerful engine to regenerate the faith. We have a lot of historical baggage, yes, but dormant within our doctrine are also powerful solutions to 21st century problems.

Excessively literal interpretations of the Book of Mormon are not the answer. Not all of the fastest-growing religions these days are of the "science be damn3d" variety. There are many counterexamples, including Wicca, Paganism, deism, and American Buddhism.

The late Sterling McMurrin had a similarly positive view of the LDS Church as a very healthy culture, even though he frankly stated that the Book of Mormon was fiction. The problem is that, in the real world, churches which adopt the fictional Bible point of view tend to lose members and disappear.

And anyway, I see no sign that the LDS Church has not been at one with science all along (read Elders P. Pratt, J. Widtsoe, and J. Talmage), and has spawned noteworthy and believing scientists (H. Eyring and H. Fletcher). Indeed, all studies have shown that of all religions, the LDS faith is far more friendly to science and intellectual attainment than any other religions, i.e., higher activity mirrors higher academic attainment. Why?

Possibly because LDS theology is a natural theology -- one which rejects the mystical nonsense of creatio ex nihilo, a transcendant God, miracle as supernatural, etc. Instead, we argue for an infinite multiverse with us as coeternal with an immanent God, with whom we are the same genus & species, worlds without end, etc.