How Can The Bom Be Inspired But Not Historical

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't understand what you are getting at. I feel thick. Can you clarify?

Like the rabbis, the Brethren have from time to time urged LDS members to avoid speculation about the mysteries. Perhaps they feel that we have a difficult enough time just dealing with the basics, and I agree.

[CASteinman]

Like the rabbis, the Brethren have from time to time urged LDS members to avoid speculation about the mysteries. Perhaps they feel that we have a difficult enough time just dealing with the basics, and I agree.

Oh! Now I get it! Thanks!

[Libs]

Like the rabbis, the Brethren have from time to time urged LDS members to avoid speculation about the mysteries. Perhaps they feel that we have a difficult enough time just dealing with the basics, and I agree.

I think President Hinckley even said this a few times. The Saints are still grappling with the basics, which is one of the reasons there has been no new revelation for quite some time.

But, still, I was talking about the things that are known, like multiple gods and the requirements to get into the Celestial Kingdom. So often, I see LDS arguing with critics and trying to downplay those things or kind of carefully walk around them. These unique doctrines seem almost an embarrassment to some. And, the critics like that, because they are the ones trying to make them feel embarrassed about them. The Great and Spacious Building at play, in that, I suppose (you could say).

[Libs]

So you think that if she had been there, it would have been different? I cannot speak for you, but I am sure that in the case of others it might have made matters worse.

As a convert who joined relatively late in life after seeing much of the world before I even knew what a Mormon was, I would have not understood one thing and would have found it profoundly peculiar.

You could be right. It may not have made a difference...it's hard to know for sure. I do know they were very hurt over being excluded, though.

[mnn727]

That's a strange perspective. All histories are written from a point of view. It is impossible to write any other way.

Did you skip my entire next paragraph?

Do you really think that when Josephus is the only source for something, that makes his words to cease to be history?

Yes, I call any "history" that we only have one source for as suspect.

This makes me think you are confusing the word "historical" with something like "accurate" or "truthful" or "reliable".

so you accept histories that are not; accurate, truthful or reliable? Edited June 8, 2012 by mnn727

[mnn727]

You are discussing two very separate issues here. One is a legitimate historiographical problem. The other is the issue of blatant lying, which .... The two issues must not be confused.

Presenting as fact a history, without giving an honest view of both sides - or lying -- I see them as the same.

How do you feel about the War of Northern Aggression?

Edited June 8, 2012 by mnn727

[ERayR]

Any account is historical to some extent. Even my life story has some history but it is not a history of the United States or of Idaho or even of my town. It is my history and these other things may be mentioned as they affect me. So the Book of Mormon is an abridgement whose purpose is to testify of Jesus Christ. All else is peripheral and is included at the discretion of the abridger.

[Robert F. Smith]

Presenting as fact a history, without giving an honest view of both sides - or lying -- I see them as the same.

The best, honest historians regularly wrestle with questions of truth, and most try mightily to write accurate history. The problem is that history is never a list of facts, but rather the interpretation of facts, and the sources are often very biased in one way or another. Reading everything available and then balancing the accounts is very difficult, if not impossible. There is simply too much data. But an effort must be made. One hopes that with the presentation of a diversity of views among historians, one can approximate the truth. I thought, for example, that the Ken Burns PBS-TV series on the Civil War made an exemplary effort to be fair and balanced. Do you agree?

How do you feel about the War of Northern Aggression?

The American Civil War is a parade example of this historiographical problem, and you obviously posed your tongue-in-cheek question with a full awareness of the problem of sources written from very divergent points of view. A good historian must take both the southern and northern descriptions of events (letters, military records, books, etc.) and carefully weigh them in light of religious, economic, and social factors, attempting to be very fair to both sides in the dispute -- including the point of view of the slaves as well. The mass of data to be considered is not usually written to deceive, but simply reflects those very divergent points of view, which seem true in the minds of those writing them. Lying or deception is not the issue, unless we are discussing the deliberate effort to escape guilt for exercise of lynch law (an oxymoron in any case).

Another way of dealing with the horror of war is historical fiction, in which one attempts to portray the truth about combat. The Red Badge of Courage would be a worthy example of that for the Civil War, and perhaps the film "Platoon" for the Vietnam War. You choose your own favorites.

[mfbukowski]

How do you feel about the War of Northern Aggression?

Downright un-Civil.

[Cobalt-70]

2. Absolutely, non-members should be able to view marital sealings. I agree with Cobalt-70's answers up to this point; we should include whatever version of the Temple Ceremony is current in the Standard Works. Illustrations, even. And I am all for Prayer Circles wherever. I love the transcripts of the early days before the Temples were finished and the Saints were doing their rituals in the midst of the trees and rivers and fields. (I'm a huge William Blake fanboy, for one thing. *grin* "I went to the Garden of Love ...")

Until around WWII or so, they used to have prayer circles in local church buildings. If it is supposed to be the "true order or prayer," you'd think we should be doing it more often than we are, in comparison to the "untrue" way.

(The one place I'd disagree with Cobalt-70 is Trinitarianism. Since I personally believe the Holy Spirit of Wisdom is Lady Wisdom/Queen of Heaven, I think we're already invoking Her in prayer all the time, so that's not a big deal. But I think Trinitarianism is one of the philosophical constructs from traditional Christianity that the Restoration pretty definitively rejected. Still, I am all in favor of diverse doctrinal views -- it don't prove a man ain't a good man just because he errs in doctrine. )

I wasn't saying that any Mormons should be required to believe in trinitarianism. I wouldn't. I'm just saying that if a Mormon wanted to be a trinitarian, nobody should stand in their way. As a practical matter, many Mormons today are trinitarian, anyway. Probably most new converts are trinitarians until they are sufficiently integrated into the present Mormon conformity. I'm just arguing for diversity.

I don't think that the Restoration definitively rejected trinitarianism. All Mormons were essentially trinitarians until about 1844, when Smith started going in another direction. There is nothing in our present canon that is clearly incompatible with trinitarianism. Even if both the Father and Son have distinct bodies, that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't co-essential. After all, trinitarianism has no issue with Jesus having a body.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Does this proposal include the couple making their matrimonial handclasp underneath an opaque cloth or fabric? Otherwise, they would be 'revealing' something to non-initiates.

The idea of the handclasp is so that two Masons/Mormons can pass the signal in public in an inconspicuous way. You can't really tell that it has special meaning, because it is more "felt" than seen. It is quite different from the "sign" which is a public display.

[Cobalt-70]

I think two things strongly mitigate against the idea that the Book of Mormon is not "historical".

1. Anthon Manuscript.

2. Testimony of the Witnesses including Joseph Smith.

I put the word "historical" in quotes because I believe that though accounts may record things that transpired, this is not to say that they always literally occurred as described. In particular, I am thinking of Genesis where I think things are actual and true history, but not told in the same way that we think of history as being -- a recitation of time by time facts.

I don't think either thing really addresses the historicity issue. Unless someone can decode the Anthon transcript and prove that it was more than random noise, then I think the transcript is a negative indicator of historicity, because it isn't a plausible linguistic variation on any Egyptian script. It would have had to have come from the book of Lehi, which was supposed to have been written in "the language of the Egyptians" (1 Ne. 1:2). You can't blame linguistic drift, unless Lehi royally messed up his teaching of the "language of the Egyptians" to his son so badly that it was unrecognizable and unrelated to Egyptian scripts already within one generation.

The testimony of the witnesses don't address historicity, because regardless of whether the witnesses saw an actual artifact when Smith opened the chest, or they just saw a vision of the artifact when Smith opened the chest, that only tells us that they saw plates. It doesn't tell us whether the plates contained an ancient history that had any linguistic relationship with the Book of Mormon.

[volgadon]

I don't think either thing really addresses the historicity issue. Unless someone can decode the Anthon transcript and prove that it was more than random noise, then I think the transcript is a negative indicator of historicity, because it isn't a plausible linguistic variation on any Egyptian script. It would have had to have come from the book of Lehi, which was supposed to have been written in "the language of the Egyptians" (1 Ne. 1:2). You can't blame linguistic drift, unless Lehi royally messed up his teaching of the "language of the Egyptians" to his son so badly that it was unrecognizable and unrelated to Egyptian scripts already within one generation.

Wouldn't the Book of Lehi have been Mormon's abridgedment?

Edited June 9, 2012 by volgadon

[CASteinman]

Did you skip my entire next paragraph?

No.

Yes, I call any "history" that we only have one source for as suspect.

But that was not the question. The question was whether it was a history or not? Was it HISTORICAL?

so you accept histories that are not; accurate, truthful or reliable?

I absolutely do NOT claim that they are something other than histories. I do not make up my own definitions of words and then expect to be understood clearly.

A case in point: Irenaeus gives a history of Jesus Christ, in which he declares that Jesus lived to be an old man. Its not reasonable to say that Jesus lived to be an old man, but this does not change the fact that he was writing a history. It may not be an accurate history. It may not be a correct history (is there any such thing?). But it is still a history.

[CASteinman]

I don't think either thing really addresses the historicity issue. Unless someone can decode the Anthon transcript and prove that it was more than random noise, then I think the transcript is a negative indicator of historicity, because it isn't a plausible linguistic variation on any Egyptian script. It would have had to have come from the book of Lehi, which was supposed to have been written in "the language of the Egyptians" (1 Ne. 1:2). You can't blame linguistic drift, unless Lehi royally messed up his teaching of the "language of the Egyptians" to his son so badly that it was unrecognizable and unrelated to Egyptian scripts already within one generation.

That it cannot be deciphered is irrelevant. But what is relevant is that the only way that Joseph Smith could have copied the characters is if he had some plates to copy them from. Now, of course, if he was a fraud, then he would have made them up, but in that case they would not have been copies.

Thus, if there were plates from ancient times with an account upon them, they are by definition.. historical.

The testimony of the witnesses don't address historicity, because regardless of whether the witnesses saw an actual artifact when Smith opened the chest, or they just saw a vision of the artifact when Smith opened the chest, that only tells us that they saw plates. It doesn't tell us whether the plates contained an ancient history that had any linguistic relationship with the Book of Mormon.

You haven't paid attention to what the witnesses testified to and what they saw. They declared with soberness that they heard the voice of God declare to them that the plates were translated by the power of God -- that the Book of Mormon was true.

If their account is valid then the first page of the Book of Mormon must be true also and it says that the Book of Mormon is an account of the people of Nephi and also of the Lamanites and also of the Jaredites. That would be, in other words, a History.

In addition, as promised in the D&C, the witnesses also saw historical artifacts other than the plates: The Urim and Thummim, the breastplate and the Sword of Laban.

You are left with these choices:

1. Joseph Smith is a Liar of Extraordinary capacity, able to convince 11 other men who never changed their minds on the matter.

2. Joseph Smith is an above average liar or a lunatic who also managed to get 11 other liars or lunatics to lie and despite all of them being either wicked or crazy men and disagreeing with each other, they did not change that aspect of their stories.

3. Joseph Smith nor the Witnesses are liars but God is a liar.

4. The plates were translated correctly and thus the Book of Mormon is a History of the Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites.

For some reason you seem to be taking one of the first 3 positions.

[Cobalt-70]

Wouldn't the Book of Lehi have been Mormon's abridgedment?

Yes, you're right. I stand corrected.

[Cobalt-70]

That it cannot be deciphered is irrelevant. But what is relevant is that the only way that Joseph Smith could have copied the characters is if he had some plates to copy them from. Now, of course, if he was a fraud, then he would have made them up, but in that case they would not have been copies.

Thus, if there were plates from ancient times with an account upon them, they are by definition.. historical.

We're talking about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, not necessarily the plates. Suppose that Joseph Smith found some one-of-a-kind ancient American artifact that had writing on it, and then put it in a chest while he divined the Book of Mormon from the seer stone in his hat. Just because some people saw that artifact doesn't mean that the Book of Mormon has anything linguistically to do with it.

You haven't paid attention to what the witnesses testified to and what they saw. They declared with soberness that they heard the voice of God declare to them that the plates were translated by the power of God -- that the Book of Mormon was true.

If their account is valid then the first page of the Book of Mormon must be true also and it says that the Book of Mormon is an account of the people of Nephi and also of the Lamanites and also of the Jaredites. That would be, in other words, a History.

In addition, as promised in the D&C, the witnesses also saw historical artifacts other than the plates: The Urim and Thummim, the breastplate and the Sword of Laban.

You are left with these choices:

1. Joseph Smith is a Liar of Extraordinary capacity, able to convince 11 other men who never changed their minds on the matter.

2. Joseph Smith is an above average liar or a lunatic who also managed to get 11 other liars or lunatics to lie and despite all of them being either wicked or crazy men and disagreeing with each other, they did not change that aspect of their stories.

3. Joseph Smith nor the Witnesses are liars but God is a liar.

4. The plates were translated correctly and thus the Book of Mormon is a History of the Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites.

For some reason you seem to be taking one of the first 3 positions.

No, there are other, even more plausible possibilities. I think one of these two scenarios is most probable:

1. Smith first saw the plates in a dream in his bedroom (three dreams, actually, and a dream or waking vision the next morning). He went to Cumorah where the dream told him, and then he had another vision where he saw the buried plates. Four years later, after annually going to Cumorah, he obtained a chest, took Emma with him, and understood that the plates had been captured by the chest. The plates were invisible, however, to anyone to whom God did not choose. After a few years, Smith took the three witnesses out to the woods, and they had a vision. Then he gathered the eight witnesses and had them all heft the chest. Then he had them pray fervently before allowing each of them individually the opportunity to try to see if they had enough faith to see the plates within the chest, which Smith opened for them. The whole time, Smith honestly believed that he had the plates, but that they could only be seen by the specially chosen.
   
2. Smith had the Moroni visions as in #1, but he was never actually able to recover the plates from Cumorah, despite his best magical efforts. But he was embarrassed because he had got his family's hopes up for so long, and those of his close friends. He was, after all, the golden boy who could find treasures where others couldn't. So he created a set of plates out of aged tin, inscribed some writing on them, and put them in the chest. Then he got to thinking that it really doesn't matter whether the plates were in his box, or still in the ground in Cumorah. He wasn't going to sell them anyway, or charge admission for a peek like he originally had planned. Rather, he was going to divine their translation through his seer stone. So he was willing to maintain a little trickery, knowing that ultimately he would have the translation of the plates that still resided in the hill. In the end, the mock plates would be destroyed, and he would be left with an authentic record of the ancient Indians.
   

Edited June 9, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[CASteinman]

No, there are other, even more plausible possibilities. I think one of these two scenarios is most probable:

I fail to see how your two explanations are not covered in the first three that I gave. Yes, you added more words but you have said that Joseph Smith was a very clever liar or that Joseph Smith and the witnesses were lunatics (seeing imaginary things) and stuck to their stories all their lives.

The fact is though, that the combination of the plates and the witnesses argues for the historicity of the Book of Mormon -- UNLESS Joseph Smith was a liar or he and all the witnesses were liars or lunatics.

You can't put together a scenario that excludes lying or group lunacy --- or God lying -- and still say the Book of Mormon is not historical.

Edited June 9, 2012 by CASteinman

[Cobalt-70]

I fail to see how your two explanations are not covered in the first three that I gave. Yes, you added more words but you have said that Joseph Smith was a very clever liar or that Joseph Smith and the witnesses were lunatics (seeing imaginary things) and stuck to their stories all their lives.

The fact is though, that the combination of the plates and the witnesses argues for the historicity of the Book of Mormon -- UNLESS Joseph Smith was a liar or he and all the witnesses were liars or lunatics.

You can't put together a scenario that excludes lying or group lunacy --- or God lying -- and still say the Book of Mormon is not historical.

The scenarios I provided are much more nuanced. The first scenario was perfectly rational for a young 1820s man living in upstate New York. Those were more magical times than today. Besides, seeing a vision of plates is no more loony than seeing a vision of an angel.

In the second scenario, Smith was not really a liar, at least not about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. He would have fibbed a bit about the fake plates, but for a very good cause. It wouldn't be the last time that Smith did that. (See, e.g., polygamy.)

Edited June 9, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[CASteinman]

The scenarios I provided are much more nuanced.

You say more nuanced... I say more words. Its the same issues. #2 you say he is a liar. #1 you say all of the witnesses and Joseph Smith imagine the *same things*.

Again... you cannot argue against the historicity of the Book of Mormon unless you bring in lying or lunacy.

[Log]

Joseph was lying, insane, or telling the truth. Cobalt-70 rejects the truth option. There goes the Restoration.

[Log]

I've taxed Cobalt-70 on this before - why not simply adopt ANY "inspiring" work of fiction in place of the Book of Mormon, since they're both fictional - not even false - on his view? The product of a delusional "prophet" producing "inspired fiction" when he thought he was producing an actual history by the power and gifts of God cannot rationally be any more inspiring than the work of a rational author in knowingly producing inspirational fiction. At least with the latter, you know where you stand. With the former, you don't.

How can the Book of Mormon be true, by any definition, when exactly zero statements it contains correspond to reality on Cobalt-70's view? What, exactly, is the content behind the word "Restoration" when one thinks Joseph was simply a highly imaginative delusional superstitious backwoods idiot savant with a penchant for historical fiction?

Edited June 9, 2012 by Log

[Cobalt-70]

I've taxed Cobalt-70 on this before - why not simply adopt ANY "inspiring" work of fiction in place of the Book of Mormon, since they're both fictional - not even false - on his view? The product of a delusional "prophet" producing "inspired fiction" when he thought he was producing an actual history by the power and gifts of God cannot rationally be any more inspiring than the work of a rational author in knowingly producing inspirational fiction. At least with the latter, you know where you stand. With the former, you don't.

For those who are uncomfortable with nuance and complexity, and instead want to know exactly "where they stand," maybe they should believe that the Book of Mormon is a literal history. It doesn't really hurt anything to think that way, unless you are considering making a career out of a quixotic quest to find Nephite ruins in Guatemala. Rationality is an overrated element of modernity, and it can be okay to sacrifice rationality for inspiration, which is exactly what Smith might have done under scenario #2. But personally, I am far more inspired and moved by the nuance and complexity. To each her own.

How can the Book of Mormon be true, by any definition, when exactly zero statements it contains correspond to reality on Cobalt-70's view? What, exactly, is the content behind the word "Restoration" when one thinks Joseph was simply a highly imaginative delusional superstitious backwoods idiot savant with a penchant for historical fiction?

I didn't say that no statements in the Book of Mormon correspond to reality. Reality can mean a lot of things. If reality is defined as academic history, then there's not much there in the Book of Mormon, except for a few shout-outs to Columbus, the Pilgrims, and possibly some biblical figures. But if reality is defined as spiritual Mormon truth, then the Book of Mormon is the most "real" book available. "Restoration" means, at its most important level, a restoration to a state of community, revelation, and authority embodied in our sources of mythology.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Log]

Let's go through the book and find out which statements correspond with reality.

Knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they shall be, be it remembered, is the Lord's definition of truth. Therefore, if a statement corresponds to reality - that which actually has been, actually is, and actually shall be - it is true. Whatever is more or less than truth, be it remembered, is of the devil.

"1 I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days."

Does this statement correspond to reality? A simple yes or no will suffice. Once you have given your yes or no answer, feel free to make your yes or no as nuanced as you like.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Log

[Cobalt-70]

Joseph was lying, insane, or telling the truth. Cobalt-70 rejects the truth option. There goes the Restoration.

In scenario #1, Smith was telling the truth, 100%. In scenario #2 he fibbed a bit, but he was not at all insane. If you think that seeing visions is a sign of insanity, or even that group visions are a sign of insanity, then you must already think that Smith, Cowdery, Whitmer, and Rigdon are all insane, regardless of whether or not scenario #2 is true.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Cobalt-70