How Can The Bom Be Inspired But Not Historical

[Cobalt-70]

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.

It had to have been a vision/dream, because it happened in a room he shared with his siblings. It happened three times that night, but none of them woke up. Have you ever been to Manchester-Palmyra, where the church runs a mock-up of what the log house looked like, and have you seen the mock-up of the kids' room where it happened? It is a pretty small space.

[altersteve]

It had to have been a vision/dream, because it happened in a room he shared with his siblings. It happened three times that night, but none of them woke up. Have you ever been to Manchester-Palmyra, where the church runs a mock-up of what the log house looked like, and have you seen the mock-up of the kids' room where it happened? It is a pretty small space.

Certainly you believe that God has the ability to keep people asleep if He wants to?

Edited June 4, 2012 by altersteve

[Cobalt-70]

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.

That has happened to some faiths, but not all. Think about deism, for example, which is right now one of the fastest (if not the fastest) growing religions in the United States. But deists have adopted a very loose interpretation of the Bible. The reason I think it grows so quickly is that it has a close connection to American thoughts and ideals, much like Mormonism, yet it is compatible with science and intellectual thought. The U.S. was founded largely on deist principles, and Mormonism represents everything that post-Deist Americanism stood for.

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?

I think that used to be the case during the Roberts/Widtsoe/Talmage era. But Joseph Fielding Smith was on the other side of these men in an early 20th century philosophical divide, but Smith lived longer. And then came Bruce R. McConkie.

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.

I don't think you can say that one of those views is more mystical and/or less scientific than the other. Supporters of ex nihilo creation like to point to the big bang for support (in fact, the inventor of the theory was a Catholic priest), and most everything has ties Greek philosophy. Mormon theology is a more gnostic and mystical than most of mainstream Christianity in the sense that we have such things as the emanating "light of Christ" and connections between "intelligence" and "light." We also have magic elements like seer stones, Urim and Thummims, glowing stones touched by the finger of God, magic compasses, "slippery treasures," "governing stars," etc.

[Cobalt-70]

Certainly you believe that God has the ability to keep people asleep if He wants to?

I've seen evidence of that in many boring Sacrament meetings.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[cinepro]

So, can the Book of Moses be inspired but not historical?

[why me]

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.

And this is the way it needs to be looked at. There is no either or for the book of mormon. If it is not what it claims to be, then it is a fraud, written by someone with a knowledge of the bible, good knowledge of history and government, good knowledge of customs, a wonderful imagination and with an intent to mock god, if one considers the promise in moroni.

[Cobalt-70]

So, can the Book of Moses be inspired but not historical?

I think that the Book of Moses is just as historical as the Book of Genesis creation story which it replaces. But the Book of Moses account is more inspired and inspiring.

[Cobalt-70]

And this is the way it needs to be looked at. There is no either or for the book of mormon. If it is not what it claims to be, then it is a fraud....

That sentiment has caused many very good and righteous people to leave the LDS Church. I think we need to stop saying that. Let's just say that the Book of Mormon is not a fraud, regardless of whether it is a history of the Indians, or a fictional work of modern scripture.

[DBMormon]

That sentiment has caused many very good and righteous people to leave the LDS Church. I think we need to stop saying that. Let's just say that the Book of Mormon is not a fraud, regardless of whether it is a history of the Indians, or a fictional work of modern scripture.

I belong to this church because I hold out hope that it is the Lord's church. That it has keys, and authority, and has more truth then the rest. If there were no plates, no angels, no Prophets and apostles.... then it is a fraud and is no more right then the church universalist church down the street. In fact it is probably less right then the universalist. The LDS church may be a positive influence on families, help youth stay on the straight and narrow, help marriages last but if the church is not what it claims then it is a fraud. A fraud can still have benefiscial impact. Watching the wizard of Oz can help me learn positive principles, reading lord of the rings can be a positive influence on me, being a scientoligist can bless me... but all is fiction. It is either a fraud or the true and living church. Either Joseph made it up or there were angels and metal plates. Call a spade a spade

Edited June 4, 2012 by reelmormon

[Log]

That sentiment has caused many very good and righteous people to leave the LDS Church.

That is a matter of opinion. And it is one which I do not share.

I think we need to stop saying that.

That is a fact. You do think that.

Let's just say that the Book of Mormon is not a fraud, regardless of whether it is a history of the Indians, or a fictional work of modern scripture.

Let's not.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Log

[Robert F. Smith]

That has happened to some faiths, but not all. Think about deism, for example, which is right now one of the fastest (if not the fastest) growing religions in the United States. But deists have adopted a very loose interpretation of the Bible. The reason I think it grows so quickly is that it has a close connection to American thoughts and ideals, much like Mormonism, yet it is compatible with science and intellectual thought. The U.S. was founded largely on deist principles, and Mormonism represents everything that post-Deist Americanism stood for.

It is absurd to speak of deism as a religion. One might speak of it as a vague philosophy, but there is no organized church of deism -- which seems a contradiction in terms in any case. Humanism is better organized and far more common. Not that it matters to me if one wants to build the Thomas Paine Cathedral.

The only statement you make here worthy of note is the idea that "Mormonism represents everything that post-Deist Americanism stood for." Perhaps you could develop on that theme a bit. I'd be interested to know, for example, whether you consider Deism ("belief in God based only on reason and nature," is an online definition) compatible with Mormonism. If so, why would you assert that Mormonism is gnostic, magical, and mystical (or at least once was)?

I think that used to be the case during the Roberts/Widtsoe/Talmage era. But Joseph Fielding Smith was on the other side of these men in an early 20th century philosophical divide, but Smith lived longer. And then came Bruce R. McConkie.

True. But Mormon Doctrine is now out of print, and it was never well accepted among the Brethren, despite its popularity among the hoi polloi. What is remarkable is the harsh social criticism of Hugh Nibley, to the degree that McMurrin found himself defending BYU against Nibley's attacks during a debate they once had. Sociological analysis of Mormon intellectuals (see Armand Mauss) shows clearly that they were not slowed in their upward mobility within any area of academic excellence, despite other currents of Mormon thought then extant. They simply swam upstream and got stronger. Many of them were and are Nibleyphiles.

I don't think you can say that one of those views is more mystical and/or less scientific than the other. Supporters of ex nihilo creation like to point to the big bang for support (in fact, the inventor of the theory was a Catholic priest), and most everything has ties Greek philosophy. Mormon theology is a more gnostic and mystical than most of mainstream Christianity in the sense that we have such things as the emanating "light of Christ" and connections between "intelligence" and "light." We also have magic elements like seer stones, Urim and Thummims, glowing stones touched by the finger of God, magic compasses, "slippery treasures," "governing stars," etc.

The Big Bang theory provides no support for creation from nothing, and there is no law of physics which allows for creation from nothing (the Law of Conservation of Matter & Energy stands, as does the Law of Entropy). Mormonism claims that God and all creation is subject to natural law, but that God has the knowledge and power wherewith to utilize that eternal natural law.

As for the gnostic and mystical in Mormonism (which Harold Bloom loves to allude to), appearance must not be confused with reality: Think of Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Until recently we could bring all manner of new fangeled devices to the people in the jungles of Borneo or New Guinea and amaze them with the apparent "magic." Devices which we now take for granted (and which even remote jungle people now often possess). Thus, when we hear about a stone-in-hat with bright words appearing, how does that differ from a now commonly used solid-state electronic device with light-emitting diode (LED)? You can quibble about the archaic terminology (seer stones, Urim & Thummim, glowing stones, etc.), but it all begins to seem rather silly to call such technology into question -- as though very advanced sentient beings cannot be permitted to use such devices which even our backward civilization now considers quotidian. A fortiori for the sentient beings ("gods") which astrophysicists assure us must actually exist throughout our universe -- based merely on the sheer statistical and scientific likelihood. "Magic" indeed.

[why me]

That sentiment has caused many very good and righteous people to leave the LDS Church. I think we need to stop saying that. Let's just say that the Book of Mormon is not a fraud, regardless of whether it is a history of the Indians, or a fictional work of modern scripture.

You have a contradiction in your post. One cannot say that it is not a fraud regardless if it is history or not. It is either history or not. It is either true or a fraud. There is no middle ground especially since the book of mormon is the cornerstone of the lds faith.

But that being said, it is no different for the bible. It is either true or not. If the bible is a bunch of nice stories written by gifted writers, well, it is not what it is claimed to be: the word of god.

[Libs]

WhyMe, there are many stories in the Bible that are just "nice stories" and likely not true. Even most Christians recognize that.

I think what needs to be recognized as "true" in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are the stories about Christ. If those are not true, then neither of those books can serve as a "testament" of his life, death and resurrection.

[Log]

If those are true, then what intellectual standard, what consistent principle, permits you to reject the truth of the other stories without special pleading?

[mfbukowski]

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.

Dang that was a good post!

Per omnia saecula saeculorum, but literally!

Edit: I should clarify- saeculum is the word from which we derive "secular" meaning "worldly". It is often translated as an "age" but it also means "world". So one translation of this is "through all the worlds of the worlds". The phrase is common in Catholicism and is usually translated simply "forever"- but my belief is that it reflects a remnant of the kind of beliefs Robert is speaking of here.

Edited June 5, 2012 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

Simply because a literal reading destroys its religious significance.

[mfbukowski]

If those are true, then what intellectual standard, what consistent principle, permits you to reject the truth of the other stories without special pleading?

German uses the same word, "Geschichte" to mean both "story" and "history". No difference.

http://en.wiktionary...wiki/Geschichte

How did we get what we know about the Battle of Gettysburg?

Do you remember what you had for lunch last Friday?

How long after the events was the Book of Mormon recorded?

Was Genesis written by Moses?

What happened on your fourth birthday?

There are serious problems in knowing "what really happened" in any account; the farther back it was and the more remote it was culturally, the worse the problems become.

Remember, we are talking "history" here, not "fiction".

Edited June 5, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Libs]

That's a good point, as well, Mf. At what point does the retelling (and probable embellishment or forgetfulness) of a story that was history, then become fiction?

[Log]

Log:

Simply because a literal reading destroys its religious significance.

To whom, precisely? And how does that respond to what I wrote?

Edited June 5, 2012 by Log

[Log]

German uses the same word, "Geschichte" to mean both "story" and "history". No difference.

http://en.wiktionary...wiki/Geschichte

...

Remember, we are talking "history" here, not "fiction".

Which, as I am sure you know, does not address my question either.

[Cobalt-70]

I belong to this church because I hold out hope that it is the Lord's church. That it has keys, and authority, and has more truth then the rest. If there were no plates, no angels, no Prophets and apostles.... then it is a fraud and is no more right then the church universalist church down the street. In fact it is probably less right then the universalist. The LDS church may be a positive influence on families, help youth stay on the straight and narrow, help marriages last but if the church is not what it claims then it is a fraud. A fraud can still have benefiscial impact. Watching the wizard of Oz can help me learn positive principles, reading lord of the rings can be a positive influence on me, being a scientoligist can bless me... but all is fiction. It is either a fraud or the true and living church. Either Joseph made it up or there were angels and metal plates. Call a spade a spade

I never said I thought there are no prophets, apostles, or angels. But perhaps prophets and apostles, can connect us with God in ways that the prophets and apostles themselves don't fully understand. I think it took Joseph Smith his entire life to figure out exactly what happened in the first vision and in his Moroni visions--and I don't think he still quite understood before he was killed. I don't know whether or not there were actual, physical golden plates, or if the plates were a vision that only the righteous and faithful were able to see. But I don't think it really matters for the purpose of faith. I don't think it was a fraud. When we restrict the story to fraud vs. literal scientific truth, and think that those are the only two options, we are really playing on the same team as retro-modernist atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens.

I don't know whether Moroni was an actual intelligent entity when Joseph Smith saw him in his dreams of 1823, or whether Moroni was a friendly manifestation of God in Smith's mind that Smith was capable of understanding and relating to, or some other possibility. Smith himself seems to have taken a long time to ponder the very issue of who or what Moroni was, apparently thinking at first he was a spirit, and then in 1838 deciding he was a resurrected being. Likely, Smith initially thought he was a treasure guardian, because at the time, that is the kind of being that Smith would have been expecting and would have responded to.

But I see theses things as minor details. All mystical experiences are ambiguous in some way--which is part of the reason why they are mystical. But their ambiguity has nothing necessarily to do with whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet-apostle.

[Cobalt-70]

Let's not [just say that the Book of Mormon is not a fraud, regardless of whether it is a history of the Indians, or a fictional work of modern scripture.].

I think that any sentence that contains the phrase "the Book of Mormon is a fraud" is helpful for our faith--except the one that I am currently typing.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[mfbukowski]

That's a good point, as well, Mf. At what point does the retelling (and probable embellishment or forgetfulness) of a story that was history, then become fiction?

Indeed, that is THE question. And remember that every story presents only one point of view. If you have ever counseled people who's marriages are in trouble, you will find that you interview one and you are instantly on their side, thinking clearly that the spouse is at fault.

Then you interview the spouse and it becomes perfectly clear that the first spouse is the one at fault!

So what is the "truth"? Did Columbus "discover" America? Who were all those people living there who didn't know they hadn't been "discovered" yet?

It all depends on your point of view. Are any of these stories "fiction"?- No, just different points of view- different ways of seeing the same events.

[Cobalt-70]

You have a contradiction in your post. One cannot say that it is not a fraud regardless if it is history or not. It is either history or not. It is either true or a fraud. There is no middle ground especially since the book of mormon is the cornerstone of the lds faith.

If the Book of Mormon is the cornerstone of our faith, which I agree it is, then we should not set that cornerstone upon a sandy foundation of archaeology and history. Rather, the book itself invites readers to build upon a foundation of mystical experience. (Alma 32:28, Moroni 10:4).

[DBMormon]

But that being said, it is no different for the bible. It is either true or not. If the bible is a bunch of nice stories written by gifted writers, well, it is not what it is claimed to be: the word of god.

disagree - while the BOM is a group of books intended to have been placed together in one volume, the bible was never known by it's original authors or intended by them to be placed in one volume therefore in theory the bible could have some books that are completely false and still have others that are completely true. While as LDs we would sway from going that far in evaluating the Bible we are left with that possibility. Meanwhile the BOM is all or nothing