Van Hale - Book Of Mormon Historicity

[Cobalt-70]

Yeh, but did Jesus die for our sins? Or is that just a fairy tale?

Sure he did, but that is described in the bible, not the Book of Mormon. The historicity of the bible, and soteriological interpretation thereof, is a different issue.

How is it that you don't comprehend the fundamental issue of claim versus reality in matters of vital and basic concern? For example, do you imagine that Jesus' atonement has value in the absence of an actual Resurrection? Do you agree with some that the Israelite Exodus was just a fairy tale, but that it teaches us good principles about freedom from slavery, and the like, which are important? Is it enough for Joseph Smith to have captured some verisimilitude in his novel (the Book of Mormon) and that is what makes it worthwhile "scripture"? Same for the Book of Abraham?

Again, the stories of the Israelite Exodus, etc., are in a different book than the Book of Mormon. The extent of their historicity or lack thereof of Genesis is not the issue at hand.

Calling the Book of Mormon a "novel" is incorrect. It is not a novel. Rather, it is clearly in the scriptural genre, like the fictional Book of Job or the fictional Book of Jonah.

[teddyaware]

Again, the stories of the Israelite Exodus, etc., are in a different book than the Book of Mormon. The extent of their historicity or lack thereof of Genesis is not the issue at hand.

Calling the Book of Mormon a "novel" is incorrect. It is not a novel. Rather, it is clearly in the scriptural genre, like the fictional Book of Job or the fictional Book of Jonah.

Am I correct when I say that the reason you have arrived at the position that the Book of Mormon is a work of "inspired fiction" is because there is no archaeological evidence that the Nephites ever existed in the Americas? If so, remember that in the Book of Mormon the Lord reveals the principle of what I call "temporal perdition." According to this principle, once a people highly favored of the Lord have ripened in iniquity, the Lord often obliterates any physical evidence that these people so fallen ever existed on the face of the earth.

Therefore, my theory is that once the Nephites totally ripened in iniquity, as recorded in the latter part of the Book of Mormon, the Lord buried or obliterated virtually all physical evidence they once existed in order to satisfy the demands of divine justice. This verse sets forth the doctrine:

"And behold, that great city Moronihah have I covered with earth, and the inhabitants thereof, to hide their iniquities and their abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come any more unto me against them." 3 Nephi 9:5

So could it be the Nephite civilization has beeen hidden from before the Lord's face, and ours, because of the justice of God? Could it be that the only remaining tangible relics of this great Christian civilization were the sword of Laban, the breastplate, the urim and thummim, and the Book of Mormon plates? Could it be that the Lord is testing our faith to see if we will trust in the voice of his Spirit or in the arm of flesh"

Edited October 12, 2012 by teddyaware

[Cobalt-70]

Am I correct when I say that the reason you have arrived at the position that the Book of Mormon is a work of "inspired fiction" is because there is no archaeological evidence that the Nephites ever existed in the Americas? If so, remember that in the Book of Mormon the Lord reveals the principle of what I call "temporal perdition." According to this principle, once a people highly favored of the Lord have ripened in iniquity, the Lord often obliterates any physical evidence that these people so fallen ever existed on the face of the earth.

That is one more tool, beyond the LGM and changing horses to tapirs, etc., that apologists could use to make the Book of Mormon's historicity even more unfalsifiable. It means that Book of Mormon artifacts could not exist, even in theory, so there is no way to ever completely rule out, via archaeology or genetics, the idea that the Book of Mormon is an ancient historical record.

[teddyaware]

That is one more tool, beyond the LGM and changing horses to tapirs, etc., that apologists could use to make the Book of Mormon's historicity even more unfalsifiable. It means that Book of Mormon artifacts could not exist, even in theory, so there is no way to ever completely rule out, via archaeology or genetics, the idea that the Book of Mormon is an ancient historical record.

The following words from the Book of Mormon are from the book's own narritive; they are said to be communications of actual fact from God's own mouth, not weak tools contrived by LDS apologists to make it impossible to verify whether or not the Nephite civilization existed:

"3 Behold, that great city Zarahemla have I burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof.

4 And behold, that great city Moroni have I caused to be sunk in the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof to be drowned.

5 And behold, that great city Moronihah have I covered with earth, and the inhabitants thereof, to hide their iniquities and their abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come any more unto me against them.

6 And behold, the city of Gilgal have I caused to be sunk, and the inhabitants thereof to be buried up in the depths of the earth;

7 Yea, and the city of Onihah and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Mocum and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Jerusalem and the inhabitants thereof; and waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come up any more unto me against them.

8 And behold, the city of Gadiandi, and the city of Gadiomnah, and the city of Jacob, and the city of Gimgimno, all these have I caused to be sunk, and made ^ahills and valleys in the places thereof; and the inhabitants thereof have I buried up in the depths of the earth, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them.

9 And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was they that did destroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them.

10 And behold, the city of Laman, and the city of Josh, and the city of Gad, and the city of Kishkumen, have I caused to be burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof, because of their wickedness in casting out the prophets, and stoning those whom I did send to declare unto them concerning their wickedness and their abominations.

11 And because they did cast them all out, that there were none righteous among them, I did send down fire and destroy them, that their wickedness and abominations might be hid from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints whom I sent among them might not cry unto me from the ground against them.

12 And many great destructions have I caused to come upon this land, and upon this people, because of their wickedness and their abominations.

So, the God of the Book of Mormon makes it clear that he frequently hides the earthly remnants of the habitations of the wicked from before his face, and does so "that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them."

As for this statement of yours is incorrect :"It means that Book of Mormon artifacts could not exist." The reason why it is incorrect is because artifacts from the cities mentioned above do exist, they're buried and hid away from a wicked, sign-seeking world by the actions of a just God who tries the faith of his people.

.

Edited October 13, 2012 by teddyaware

[Cobalt-70]

So, the God of the Book of Mormon makes it clear that he frequently hides the earthly remnants of the habitations of the wicked from before his face, and does so "that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them."

As for this statement of yours is incorrect :"It means that Book of Mormon artifacts could not exist." The reason why it is incorrect is because artifacts from the cities mentioned above do exist, they're buried and hid away from a wicked, sign-seeking world by the actions of a just God who tries the faith of his people.

But where are all the new mountain ranges dated to 33 AD which were created to hide them? And how does the burying of dead people hide their iniquities and abominations from God's face? If they are dead, they can no longer sin. Besides, can't God see through dirt?

[teddyaware]

But where are all the new mountain ranges dated to 33 AD which were created to hide them? And how does the burying of dead people hide their iniquities and abominations from God's face? If they are dead, they can no longer sin. Besides, can't God see through dirt?

There is no mention of new mountain ranges at all, but of some hills and valleys:

"And behold, the city of Gadiandi, and the city of Gadiomnah, and the city of Jacob, and the city of Gimgimno, all these have I caused to be sunk, and made hills and valleys in the places thereof; and the inhabitants thereof have I buried up in the depths of the earth, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them.

As for God saying that in order to satisfy the laws of justice he must obliterate any and all traces of a fallen people's former existence, you can ask him what that principle is all about in the eternities. Like I said, I coined the expression "temporal perdition" to describe this specific type of extreme divine judgement against those who utterly ripen in iniquity. It's akin to what happened to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah -- they were obliterated. The murdering of the prophets seems mark the point of no return for those formerly enlightened and favored peoples who descend into total apostacy and wickedness.

Just out of curiosity, what rationale for your unbelief will you give to Nephi if you actually do meet him -- according to his own testimony -- at the judgement bar of God? What will you say to him when he stands before you as a real person, and asks why you came believe he never actually existed? I ask this question not to be snarky or sarcastic, but genuinely want to know what you would say to the prophet in order to convince him you were innocent of any wrong doing and had perfectly good reasons to believe he never actually wrote the words to which he most solemnly bore witness. I'm also wondering if you think you could convince him by the power of your logic, that those of us who actually did believe he was a real man were foolish and gullible for doing so?

"... And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye — for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness."

Edited October 13, 2012 by teddyaware

[cdowis]

With respect to Dallin Oaks, he's simply wrong on this point. It is more like the question of whether or not the biblical Job or Jonah lived. Nephi and Moroni did not die for our sins, nor did the fictional Job or Jonah. Yet these characters are valuable to our faith by what their stories and statements teach us.

It does make a difference if Christ cites Job and Jonah as authentic.

The Book of Mormon doesn't lie about its own historicity. I don't think Mr. Jackson quite understands the idea of fiction. When a fictional story says that such-and-such happened to so-and-so, that is not a lie. That is called "telling a story." As to Joseph Smith's statements about where he thought the text he saw in his magic stone came from? He was just mistaken. The text came from a combination of his own mind and the inspiration of God who catalyzed and guided his imagination. He wasn't lying--just understandably mistaken.

1. Clearly you are unfamiliar with the BOM text.

Nephi wrote, [11] And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye -- for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.

This is not a merely historical detail, but we must decide whether we think a "fictional" Nephi, who wrote these words, will meet us face to "fictional" face at the judgement bar. Clearly this is a truth, or a lie.

2. Now, let's come to Joseph Smith. He lied about the appearance of a "fictional" angel, the Three Witnesses lied, the Eight Witnesses lied, the D&C is full of lies regarding the BOM.

No, JS was not mistaken, but he and his wife, the eleven witnesses were either all liars, or telling the truth.

Sorry, pal, but there are only two alternatives.

Edited October 13, 2012 by cdowis

[Kevin Christensen]

I'm reading Straker's Harken, O Ye People: The Historical Setting of Joseph Smith's Ohio Revelations. Page 286 has this: "Vermonters sometimes used different vocabulary from their neighbors to the south. In Vermont, sour milk was "Bonny clabber," a pheasant was a partridge, and a partridge was a quail." Again, names of things do not eminate from the things as constants to all observers, but things are named according to different and changeable social conventions. It's exactly the kind of thing 2 Nephi 25:1-5 talks about. It's what I experienced in England. To best understand a people, we have to understand them from their perspectives, their culture, not ours.

This strikes me as re-enforcing my argument and my previous examples that about the influence of culture and vocabulary, and the general principle behind Sorenson's approach (and Gardner's and Mark Wrights, and John Clark's to cite a few), which means their their suggestions concerning directions and horses are not an ad hoc argument cobbled together for the sole purpose reading the Book of Mormon. For the argument to be ad hoc, these kinds of suggestions would have to be exclusive to and invented for reading the Book of Mormon. It is, rather, the insistence that there is something inherently amis in any such suggestion that is ad hoc.

And, Teddy, since Joseph Smith seemed to think it would be a good idea to compare Mr Stevens cities with the Book of Mormon, I think it's legitimate to assume the he did not think or expect that all traces would be wiped away. Sorenson has cited the example of the rediscovery of a submerged city in Lake Atitlan. Sorenson's time lines for the Rise and Fall of civilizations in Mesoamerica fits nicely with the Book of Mormon. Brant has cited the culural evidence of trade, social stratification, costly apparel and polygamy as emerging in the right time and place to be consistent with the what he calls "The Social History of the Early Nephites." Larry Poulson has been fitting some very interesting geographic details with the accounts we have, including the his 2008 FAIR presentation.

http://www.fairlds.o...rry-Poulsen.pdf

Not to mentions Sorenson's previews of Mormon's Codex.

I remind you that Kuhn says that most important way to judge theoretical approaches is "they must, first and foremost, permit puzzle formulation and solution." Overall, the "God hid all the evidence" approach doesn't help at all there. If we can find Nahom by looking in the right time and place, why not at least the Sidon? And it seems to me that you're not giving Sorenson and Gardner and Wright and Christenson and Wirth and the others enough credit where credit is due.

If people are looking for the wrong things in the wrong places, they aren't likely to find anything. If they are looking for the wrong things in the right places, they still won't find anything. If they shorten their list from thousands of things of potential interest to only a few, none of which tend to be placed in the kinds of ceremonial centers that attract archeologists, they are not likely to find anything. However, looking for the kinds of things that are hardest to loose, say, a well described river, or a civilization, or a trend toward militarism, or the use of cement in the right time and place, it's much easier to get a few hints that one is at least on the right track. And if one finds glyphs for "and it came to pass" and image of a tree growing out of a person's heart, that seems to be reasonably inviting "cause to believe" even if it is not coercive proof enough to force people to submit against their will.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited October 16, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith, on 12 October 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

Yeh, but did Jesus die for our sins? Or is that just a fairy tale?

Sure he did, but that is described in the bible, not the Book of Mormon. The historicity of the bible, and soteriological interpretation thereof, is a different issue.

Sounds to me like you want to have your cake and eat it too. To the contrary, the Bible and the Book of Mormon are both books, and both are subject to the same careful examination for authenticity. The same applies to Homeric Epic (Iliad & Odyssey), the Mahabharata, and many another book.

Demanding special pleading for the Bible is based on what? Probably not on a willingness to abide by standard principles of science and logic. Your judgments appear to be based on pure whimsy.

Why are you dodging the question of the historicity of the Resurrection, even though you claim that Jesus died for our sins?

Quote, Robert F. Smith:

How is it that you don't comprehend the fundamental issue of claim versus reality in matters of vital and basic concern? For example, do you imagine that Jesus' atonement has value in the absence of an actual Resurrection? Do you agree with some that the Israelite Exodus was just a fairy tale, but that it teaches us good principles about freedom from slavery, and the like, which are important? Is it enough for Joseph Smith to have captured some verisimilitude in his novel (the Book of Mormon) and that is what makes it worthwhile "scripture"? Same for the Book of Abraham?

Cobalt-70 said:

Again, the stories of the Israelite Exodus, etc., are in a different book than the Book of Mormon. The extent of their historicity or lack thereof of Genesis is not the issue at hand.

Calling the Book of Mormon a "novel" is incorrect. It is not a novel. Rather, it is clearly in the scriptural genre, like the fictional Book of Job or the fictional Book of Jonah.

Let's see, according to you, the "fictional" books of Job and Jonah are in the Bible, which is "a different book than the Book of Mormon," which is also "fictional" in content. So what other parts of the Bible are "fictional"? You seem very fearful of addressing the "historicity" of Genesis or Exodus here. Why?

Are you afraid that, in any real discussion, you will find that the rules you pretend to follow will come back to haunt you -- and that you will paint yourself into a corner?? Do you even care about the simple concept of fairness? Apparently not.

[Cobalt-70]

Just out of curiosity, what rationale for your unbelief will you give to Nephi if you actually do meet him -- according to his own testimony -- at the judgement bar of God? What will you say to him when he stands before you as a real person, and asks why you came believe he never actually existed? I ask this question not to be snarky or sarcastic, but genuinely want to know what you would say to the prophet in order to convince him you were innocent of any wrong doing and had perfectly good reasons to believe he never actually wrote the words to which he most solemnly bore witness. I'm also wondering if you think you could convince him by the power of your logic, that those of us who actually did believe he was a real man were foolish and gullible for doing so?

Nephi could be real. So could Moroni. But I'm convinced the stories about them in the Book of Mormon are fictional. If Nephi were real, I doubt he'd be so vain as to care about what I thought of him. But if I met him in the afterlife, I guess I'd tell him the same thing I'd tell Valentine Michael Smith.

There is a saint, named Saint Veronica, to whom Catholics sometimes pray. But she never actually existed as a real person. But that doesn't matter much, because despite her nonexistence, she is responsible for certain miracles, and for comforting thousands of people. People who don't exist can do just as much good in the world as people who do.

[teddyaware]

I remind you that Kuhn says that most important way to judge theoretical approaches is "they must, first and foremost, permit puzzle formulation and solution." Overall, the "God hid all the evidence" approach doesn't help at all there. If we can find Nahom by looking in the right time and place, why not at least the Sidon? And it seems to me that you're not giving Sorenson and Gardner and Wright and Christenson and Wirth and the others enough credit where credit is due.

If people are looking for the wrong things in the wrong places, they aren't likely to find anything. If they are looking for the wrong things in the right places, they still won't find anything. If they shorten their list from thousands of things of potential interest to only a few, none of which tend to be placed in the kinds of ceremonial centers that attract archeologists, they are not likely to find anything. However, looking for the kinds of things that are hardest to loose, say, a well described river, or a civilization, or a trend toward militarism, or the use of cement in the right tiem and place, it's much easier to get a few hints that one is at least on the right track. And if one finds glyphs for "and it came to pass" and image of a tree growing out of a person's heart, that seems to be reasonably inviting "cause to believe" even if it is not coercive proof enough to force people to submit against their will.

Well said and points well taken, Kevin.

As you may have already discerned, I'm open minded on the subject of Book of Mormon geography. My point in quoting 3 Nephi 9 is to show that it's rather an easy matter for the Lord to "hide" large cities if he so chooses. At least as insofar as the many cities mentioned in this chapter are concerned, in a matter of just three hours, all visible traces of their former existence had "vanished" from off the face of the earth.

One can only imagine the strange experiences of those Nephites who took the trouble to travel to the locations of these former, well-established cities and finding hills, valleys or sea water filling the voids where these prominent former habitations once stood. And, at least as insofar as these particular cities are concerned, and they are not few, they would have seemed to have vanished into thin air without a trace.

" And behold, the city of Gadiandi, and the city of Gadiomnah, and the city of Jacob, and the city of Gimgimno, all these have I caused to be sunk, and made hills and valleys in the places thereof; and the inhabitants thereof have Iburied up in the depths of the earth, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them."

So, all I'm saying is that I wouldn't at all be surprised if it turns out the Nephite civilization has been intentionally hidden from our view by the Lord, in order to test our faith. And it also wouldn't surprise me if the civilizations of the Lost Tribes of Israel are similarly hidden. After all, by the Lord's own declaration, if we are to believe his words in the above quote, eternal justice cries out that he (and I paraphrase) "must hide their wickedness and abominations from before his face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them."

There seems to be a principle at work here -- 'temporal perdition' for those formerly blessed peoples of the Lord who utterly ripen in rebellion and iniquity.

Nevertheless, my mind is open and I do find your perspective logical, enlightening and thought-provoking.

All the best, Ted

Edited October 14, 2012 by teddyaware

[Cobalt-70]

Demanding special pleading for the Bible is based on what? Probably not on a willingness to abide by standard principles of science and logic. Your judgments appear to be based on pure whimsy.

There is independent evidence that Jesus actually existed. The best "evidence" we have that even a single Nephite existed is the theory that, like the Loch Ness monster and Sasquatch, they at least can't be ruled out.

Why are you dodging the question of the historicity of the Resurrection, even though you claim that Jesus died for our sins?

The historicity of the resurrection of Jesus has nothing to do with the historicity of the Book of Mormon, any more than the historicity of Harry Houdini has anything to do with the historicity of E.L Doctorow's Ragtime, a fictional work that includes Houdini as a character. Just because a work contains a story about someone who actually existed does not mean that it is history.

Let's see, according to you, the "fictional" books of Job and Jonah are in the Bible, which is "a different book than the Book of Mormon," which is also "fictional" in content. So what other parts of the Bible are "fictional"? You seem very fearful of addressing the "historicity" of Genesis or Exodus here. Why?

I've already said, several times, that much of Genesis and Exodus are myths. How much of the myths are based on historical characters is unknown. But the Book of Mormon is not really even myth in that same sense, given that it was authored in 1829, and not based on an previous oral tradition.

[Cobalt-70]

It does make a difference if Christ cites Job and Jonah as authentic.

Jesus was the Christ, not a historian.

2. Now, let's come to Joseph Smith. He lied about the appearance of a "fictional" angel, the Three Witnesses lied, the Eight Witnesses lied, the D&C is full of lies regarding the BOM.

No, JS was not mistaken, but he and his wife, the eleven witnesses were either all liars, or telling the truth.

Sorry, pal, but there are only two alternatives.

I don't think there is any reason to think that Joseph Smith or the three witnesses lied about seeing an angel. That doesn't mean that the angel was necessarily a character from the Book of Mormon, or the story about that character was historically accurate.

Deliberate fraud and 100% accuracy are never the only two explanations. Other options include mistake, exaggeration, altered memories, false memories, post hoc rationalization, misperception, dreaming, hallucination, altered second-hand accounts, etc. Any one familiar with either the law or with psychology knows that eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable, even though the witness is absolutely convinced that their memory of the event is accurate. Moreover, every time you access a memory, you are pulling it out, changing it, and then re-filing it in its modified form.

[Dcharle]

I agree with you comments Cobalt-70,

This "either or" mentality will not win the day for the apologists. There is allot of room between 100% false and 100% true!

[Tacenda]

I wish like crazy "Van Hale" would come on this thread and speak. I'd love to chat with him about this topic and his radio program. I believe he is a member of the board.