Van Hale - Book Of Mormon Historicity

[Robert F. Smith]

Problem that I see is that for years prophets and leaders have testified and declared it to be a literal translation of ancient records, of a group of people that inhabited the Americas. Now that evidence is mounting to tip the scales that it is not literal some are beginning to say that it is not important that it never happened. It is only important that we believe the BofM is inspired. So unlike parables in the bible which everyone understood to be just stories we were taught the BofM is literal. Hard to back away from that now that it is troublesome. Of course I think it is better to face reality than hold onto beliefs that are suspect.

I wonder if in 50 or 100 years if there will be any allusion to the BofM being literal, or more like a fable.

(Faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction--faith in fiction is a damnable false hope. Thomas A. Edison)

Hey, Monster,

You're probably only afraid of being assimilated to the Borg, but be assured that resistance is futile.

In fact, a wide array of hard as well as circumstantial evidence shows that the Book of Mormon is most likely a factual account of events from the 2nd millennium B.C. down to the 4th century A.D. Perhaps you are unaware of the long bibliography of FARMS and Maxwell Institute publications available online, and have not actually discussed this issue with knowledgeable persons.

[DonBradley]

Does this represent Van's current view? Has he said anything on this more recently?

Don

[Tacenda]

Does this represent Van's current view? Has he said anything on this more recently?

Don

You may already be aware, but Van is on these boards occasionally. So if you're out there and reading Van, here is the question from Don. Also, I have a question about your podcast. Why can't I view or listen to rather, any new ones? I can only bring up the older ones? For instance, the Simon Southerton interview, that I have read about on this board.

(Sorry to horn in on your question Don)

Edited August 6, 2012 by Tacenda

[DBMormon]

I was listening to Van Hale's interview today that he had some time ago with Shawn McCraney. I spoke in a thread at one time about how the church seems weak at times because it is always on the defense. If you listen to this interview. You will see Van Hale gets it, and by putting McCraney on his heels and turning the tables and making him defend his position, he takes him to the woodshed. Which does not do anything other then show that defending a position, even a true and strong position is very difficult and appears very weak at times to a listener.

An analogy is US defense of terrorism. The terrorist while weaker in technology and numbers only has to succed once to display mjor weaknesses in the US defense. While stronger the US has to be win and and be perfect in it's defense each and every time. It has to be perfect to win.

Anti's play on this framework constantly. I wish more of Latter-Day Saints who have faith crisis would recognize this. Debates and discussions take on very different tones and give very different impressions based on whether one is defending a position or criticizing a position and many times has much less to do with the strength of a position and much more to do with whether one is on offense or defense.

I recognize that Van Hale has a strong testimony of the gospel. Just not sure how one having a strong testimony can also then find ways to keep that testimony while saying the BOM is not what it claims to be.

[Dcharle]

I was listening today to his program. the episode where he has Simon Southerton on. Van, who I find to be a giant defender of the restoration seems to say that he doesn't believe the Book of Mormon's historicity is valid

http://www.i4m.com/t..._transcript.htm

Am I to understand that he has a testimony that the gospel is all it says it is, it is the restored church, and that the Book of Mormon while divine is not really what it says it is nor does it come to us as it is said to?

I am confused.... Help me

I have know Van for a long time, and this is correct, he no longer believes the BoM to be an actual history, to him it is a spiritual book from God, but not a history of people living on the american continent. He would liken it much unto a metaphor in the New Testament the Jesus used to teach with. Jesus did not actually see a man sowing seeds necessarily but he used that to teach a lesson. Many who once held to the old belief that the BoM is actual historical fact are changing their minds. This includes Van Hale.

[DBMormon]

If the book is not what it is claimed to be then those who take that view are saying "it is a fraud, that has value". Not saying what others can or can not do. But if the Book is not what it claims to be then then all the building blocks come down. God has to be honest for me to trust in him. Even if he thinks it is for my good, if he tells me statement 1 is truth and it turns out not be false then I can no longer believe God.

For me either the book is true in every sense of the word, or the church is a fraud. You can't have your cake and eat it too. While I find the BOM spiritually dynamic and much responsible for my own spiritual growth, I would not participate fully in a church that proclaims a book that is not what it claims to be.

Is this where we are headed?..... a place where a growing number of members find the truth claims of the church to not be true, but because so much has been invested they find ways to justify the church as still being sanctioned by God?

I am as flexible as anyone, but like Elder Holland says :

http://www.pbs.org/m...ws/holland.html

What about people who question the history of the Book of Mormon?

There are plenty of people who question the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and they are firmly in this church -- firmly, in their mind, in this church -- and the church isn't going to take action against that. [The church] probably will be genuinely disappointed, but there isn't going to be action against that, not until it starts to be advocacy: "Not only do I disbelieve in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, I want you to disbelieve." At that point, we're going to have a conversation. A little of that is more tolerated than I think a lot of people think it should be. But I think we want to be tolerant any way we can. ... "Patient" maybe is a better word than "tolerant." We want to be patient and charitable to the extent that we can, but there is a degree beyond which we can't go. ...

Like Elder Holland, I can't go there

Edited September 18, 2012 by DBMormon

[teddyaware]

I have know Van for a long time, and this is correct, he no longer believes the BoM to be an actual history, to him it is a spiritual book from God, but not a history of people living on the american continent. He would liken it much unto a metaphor in the New Testament the Jesus used to teach with. Jesus did not actually see a man sowing seeds necessarily but he used that to teach a lesson. Many who once held to the old belief that the BoM is actual historical fact are changing their minds. This includes Van Hale.

I would suppose it's good a good thing that brother Hale has, somehow, managed to continue to believe the Book of Mormon is still scripture, even though, if he's correct, the content of the Book is a pack of continuous untruths. And even though the gold plates were dilvered to Joseph Smith by a angel, whom we are told cannot lie, yet the events recorded on the plates constitute nothing but a very long train of fabulous falsehoods.

So if Van Hale is correct about the Book of Mormon being some sort of "inspired" fiction, then there never really was a noble, young hero of a boy named Nephi, who was commanded of the Lord to go and get the brass plates; there never were goodly parents named Lehi and Sariah; there never was a Liahona; there never was a good king named Benjamin, and he never really was visited by an angel who proclaimed the coming of the Savior (who is full of grace and truth) to America; there never was a rebellious young man named Alma, who endured the pains of a damned soul before he saw a marvelous, healing light.

And there never was a mighty and righteous General named Moroni, who raised the standard of liberty in defence of freedom; there never was a visit by the glorious resurrected Christ to his "other sheep" in America; there never really was a prophet Mormon for whom the Book of scripture is named; there never was a man known as the brother of Jared who saw the finger of the Lord; there never was an abridgement of the Nephite records; and Moroni's promise of a way to know the truth of all things is mired in a morass of bewilderment and confusion. And what are we to make, then, of keystone scripture? It is wedged into the top of a crumbling arch of uncertainty.

And the Father of Truth, and the Son (who is the way the Truth and the life), and the Holy Ghost (who is the Spirit of Truth), are all willing to stand back and countenance this endless parade of fantasy in the name of some greater good. I guess what I've heard all these years about it never being right for any ends to justify tactics of questionable means is not God's way after all.

This alien nether world that hovers somewhere in between inspired faith and unbelief is like lukewarm water, and we know what the Savior said about lukewarm water. This is one of the strangest examples I've seen of somebody trying to have 'it' both ways -- believing and not believing simultaneously. What won't they think up next?

Edited September 18, 2012 by teddyaware

[DavidB]

I think it is spiritually implausible to not believe the BoM is actual history.

Moroni's promise is to ask if the things written therein are not true. Moroni 10 starts out with proclaiming 400 years have passed since the sign was given of the coming of Christ.

[MormonMason]

If only the BoM had started out ," A long ,long time ago , in a galaxy far ,far away....."

"I find your lack of faith disturbing..."

[MormonMason]

The book does hold some kind of magic spell, whether it's in the minds of people or from God, people can get so much good out of it! Ever since my faith crisis it's the last to go. I get how it's maybe possble for JS to author it, but it 'd have to be some phenonomen he was born with to have solely written it. And just maybe he channeled it straight from God and made up the plates for it to seem more plausible for others to comprehend?

Too many people saw and handled the plates for them not to have existed or for them to have been "made up."

[MormonMason]

I guess I'm still hung up on if it was with spiritual eyes or not. And that the plates were not, IMHO translated word for word like I was always taught to believe. My testimony of the BOM is still there it's just been altered and weakened because of new information that I was unaware of before.

The "spiritual eyes" comment has a time frame that the critics take out of context. The time frame was during the translation and before the witnesses went into the forest to obtain their testimony. During the time of translation, they were kept covered. The exception was when he was by himself and copied a number of characters from the plates and translated a few of them. Common Church artwork in the old missionary lessons depicts and is an artist's impression of the time that Joseph Smith did not yet have a scribe and undertook to copy characters from the plates and translate a few of them.

[Cobalt-70]

For me either the book is true in every sense of the word, or the church is a fraud.

A faith that is incapable of believing that the Book of Mormon is true if fictional seems to be to be a rather weak faith. History is a sandy foundation upon which to build your faith.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[DavidB]

A faith that is incapable of believing that the Book of Mormon is true if fictional seems to be to be a rather weak faith. History is a sandy foundation upon which to build your faith.

But it is not a faith on history, it is faith on the claims of the book itself. Moroni's promise, as it is called, is to ask about truthfulness of historic events documented in the Book of Mormon.

[DBMormon]

A faith that is incapable of believing that the Book of Mormon is true if fictional seems to be to be a rather weak faith. History is a sandy foundation upon which to build your faith.

I have no problem with some of the stories out of the bible being symbolic. We do not know whether the Author of Jonah meant it as a fictional story with a purpose or not so am fine with many stories in it being fictional (exception - Jesus has to be divine and have made an atonement)

The Book of Mormon is a different animal. It was revealed by an angel, there were plates, Joseph saw Moroni and he bore witness of his people. The Book of Mormon is a whole different kind of issue then the bible. It is apples and oranges. It must be true or God himself and his angels have lied. I can't go that far and still make it work.

Edited September 19, 2012 by DBMormon

[shalamabobbi]

John 10:16 other sheep I have which are not of this fold...they shall hear my voice

Matt 15:24 I am not sent, but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Cobalt, you are to be dunked until we get your confession..

[Cobalt-70]

The Book of Mormon is a different animal. It was revealed by an angel, there were plates, Joseph saw Moroni and he bore witness of his people. The Book of Mormon is a whole different kind of issue then the bible. It is apples and oranges. It must be true or God himself and his angels have lied. I can't go that far and still make it work.

But by saying that if it isn't historical, it isn't true, you are limiting the conditions of faith. It is one thing to say, "I believe the Book of Mormon is historical, but if it isn't, then I still believe it is the word of God." But to say. "I cannot believe unless the Book of Mormon is historical" is something else: it is a conditional faith, a faith on my own terms.

[RadioFreeDeath]

I can't see how one can deny the historocity of the book of Mormon like that. The point of the Book of Mormon is that Christ did actually visit other peoples. That he did rise from the dead. That faith did allow a people to thrive. If none of that is actually true, than what is the point of the fiction? Pretty stories that make us feel good but provide no actual sustenance? Once Christ risen is a myth the rest of the gospel falls with it. Or do we take the Resurrection as still literal but deny its witnesses?

[DBMormon]

Cobalt - It seems your setting up God to place progression as the key and in order to motivate his children to work towards progression and that he lies to them at every turn if it will serve the greater purpose?

- If the Book of Mormon is not historical then every facet that makes this church special is a lie and while the church may spiritually benefit you, help you grow, help you be better..... it is still a lie and If that is the case I would rather be part of a non-denominational church up the street.

Of course I believe it is historical, so I'll hang around.

[Cobalt-70]

Cobalt - It seems your setting up God to place progression as the key and in order to motivate his children to work towards progression and that he lies to them at every turn if it will serve the greater purpose?

- If the Book of Mormon is not historical then every facet that makes this church special is a lie and while the church may spiritually benefit you, help you grow, help you be better..... it is still a lie and If that is the case I would rather be part of a non-denominational church up the street.

Of course I believe it is historical, so I'll hang around.

There is a vast difference between a lie and a mistake. God of course didn't make a mistake--that was Joseph Smith. You could say that the Book of Mormon is a fictional work of profound truth, and that it is because of Joseph Smith's human frailty that he was under the impression it was a history of the Indians.

[Cobalt-70]

I can't see how one can deny the historocity of the book of Mormon like that. The point of the Book of Mormon is that Christ did actually visit other peoples. That he did rise from the dead. That faith did allow a people to thrive. If none of that is actually true, than what is the point of the fiction? Pretty stories that make us feel good but provide no actual sustenance? Once Christ risen is a myth the rest of the gospel falls with it. Or do we take the Resurrection as still literal but deny its witnesses?

I don't think that's the point of the Book of Mormon. So what if Jesus did, or did not, visit the Indians? Since the Nephites all died off anyway, that has no direct effect on your salvation. What may have a direct effect on your salvation is the story of Jesus visiting the Indians. It doesn't matter whether the story is fiction or history, it is equally touching and faith-promoting in either case. Indeed, had the story been a historical account, it would probably have been rather dry and boring.

[teddyaware]

Over the years, I've learned the human mind has a seemingly infinite capacity to rationalize and explain away inconvenient things. I would imagine the incredible premise that's inspired this thread would have a good chance to make it onto the all-time, top 10 list of the "Rationalizers Hall of Fame."

There is a positive side, though: It seems that even though brother Hale can't bring himself to believe in the historicty the Book of Mormon, he nevertheless realizes only a miracle from God could produce such a wondrous book -- and I guess that's a good thing. At least the position he's taken seems better than outright rejection.

[Robert F. Smith]

I have know Van for a long time, and this is correct, he no longer believes the BoM to be an actual history, to him it is a spiritual book from God, but not a history of people living on the american continent. He would liken it much unto a metaphor in the New Testament the Jesus used to teach with. Jesus did not actually see a man sowing seeds necessarily but he used that to teach a lesson. Many who once held to the old belief that the BoM is actual historical fact are changing their minds. This includes Van Hale.

This is one major reason why the RLDS Church became the Community of Christ -- essentially a mainstream Protestant Church led by some very nice people.

However, the basis for that decision by the RLDS hierarchy was flawed by their lack of knowledge of the ancient world (archeology, ancient languages, and religions). Many of them had been trained in theology at a nearby Methodist seminary (St. Paul School of Theology) and the result was predictable. I have nothing against that seminary, and spent many happy hours there using their huge library. I have read the documents written by RLDS scholars explaining why they do not consider the Book of Mormon to be authentically historical, and have found their work filled with direct contradictions of fact and a multitude of fallacies.

It is silly to expect that someone can pass judgment on the secular historicity of the Book of Mormon without knowing anything at all about the ancient world.

[Robert F. Smith]

There is a vast difference between a lie and a mistake. God of course didn't make a mistake--that was Joseph Smith. You could say that the Book of Mormon is a fictional work of profound truth, and that it is because of Joseph Smith's human frailty that he was under the impression it was a history of the Indians.

Orson Pratt: "This book must be either true or false. If true, it is one of the most important messages ever sent from God to man, affecting both the temporal and eternal interests of every people under heaven to the same extent and in the same degree that the message of Noah affected the inhabitants of the old world. If false, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions who will sincerely receive it as the word of God, and will suppose themselves securely built upon the rock of truth until they are plunged with their families into hopeless despair. The nature of the message in the Book of Mormon is such, that if true, no one can possibly be saved and reject it; if false, no one can possibly be saved and receive it."

[nealr]

There is a vast difference between a lie and a mistake. God of course didn't make a mistake--that was Joseph Smith. You could say that the Book of Mormon is a fictional work of profound truth, and that it is because of Joseph Smith's human frailty that he was under the impression it was a history of the Indians.

That would work, if it weren't for all the artifacts Joseph Smith said he had, and to which others attested, and the fact that the angel who visited Joseph Smith said he was one of these ancient prophets from America who wrote on the plates. So, if the Book of Mormon is fictional, then how do you answer these questions without either (a) implicating God as deliberately deceiving Joseph Smith, or(b) Joseph Smith perpetrating a fraud:

1. Why did the angel identify himself as Moroni, one of the fictional Nephites? Was this messenger from God lying? Or did Joseph Smith just make that part up?

2. Where did the numerous artifacts (the plates, Laban sword and breastplate, the interpreters, etc.) come from? Did God just make them up to convince Joseph Smith (thus, God created forgeries)? And why would God manufacture this evidence for a fictional book? Or did Joseph Smith (and others) lie about having them, or make his own fake artifacts?

3. Why has God been silent in correct this misperception about the Book of Mormon's story for 182 years? Why has God let every prophet since Joseph Smith teach that it is historical? Why has God never said, "Oh, and by the way, the Book of Mormon isn't actually history, so stop teaching people that it is." Is God deliberately trying to create barriers to faith here?

I don't see how a fictional-but-divine Book of Mormon can be sustainable position. And before you start off about how "weak" people's faith must be to only believe in the book if it is historical, consider this essay from Elder Dallin H. Oaks: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=21&num=1&id=639

Are you willing to suggest that Elder Oaks has weak faith?

[Cobalt-70]

Orson Pratt: "This book must be either true or false. If true, it is one of the most important messages ever sent from God to man, affecting both the temporal and eternal interests of every people under heaven to the same extent and in the same degree that the message of Noah affected the inhabitants of the old world. If false, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions who will sincerely receive it as the word of God, and will suppose themselves securely built upon the rock of truth until they are plunged with their families into hopeless despair. The nature of the message in the Book of Mormon is such, that if true, no one can possibly be saved and reject it; if false, no one can possibly be saved and receive it."

Who is proposing that the Book of Mormon isn't true, or that its message is not crucial for salvation? Not me.