A Fictional Book Of Mormon?

[William Schryver]

If God is truly a father, our Father, and we are his children, then I think He will exercise a father's mercy in regards to these matters--at least I hope so.

I am personally convinced that one simply cannot come to know Christ as he truly is without regarding the Book of Mormon as an authentic historical account. It must be understood in those terms in order to reveal God to its readers.

[rodheadlee]

Have you read about the Cristero Rebellion in the 1920s which occurred because the Mexican government had turned socialist and was banning the Catholic Church from operating and completely doing away with freedom of religion?

No but we had a revolution too. and the Catholic Church looks pretty strong today, so the good guys must have won.

[bdouglas]

I am personally convinced that one simply cannot come to know Christ as he truly is without regarding the Book of Mormon as an authentic historical account. It must be understood in those terms in order to reveal God to its readers.

One part of my says, yes, you are right, I agree. The BOM is a testament of Christ for this generation, and God isn't going to send another simply because some people don't like it or won't accept it. But another part of me, when I think of family members who I love and do not feel this way about the BOM...another part of me says that maybe these family members are like the disciple (later apostle) Thomas who had to see in order to believe.

[DonBradley]

Will,

As I understand it, Joseph Smith came to know Christ as he truly is in the Sacred Grove, a few years prior to even hearing the word "Nephite."

Don

[DonBradley]

Kevin,

What thoughtful, spiritually and intellectually mature contributions you've made to this thread. You've expanded my horizons.

Thank you!

Don

[Tacenda]

I'm listening to this podcast right now and think that it correlates with the topic of this post and even the Paul H. Dunn thread that has since been locked. Haven't finished it yet, so hopefully I'm right that it does indeed correlate.

Charles Harrell, Wade Greenwood and Eric Samuelsen are on with Dan Witherspoon.

http://mormonmatters...-and-scripture/

Edited August 20, 2012 by Tacenda

[Kevin Christensen]

Thanks, Jeremy and Don.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Calm]

No but we had a revolution too. and the Catholic Church looks pretty strong today, so the good guys must have won.

And a Civil War....

And let's not forget that slavery was not abolished legally until 1865 and women did not have the right to vote nationally until 1920.

Edited August 21, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

The Book of Mormon has value in a variety of ways and on several levels. If it proved not to have value in one way, it would still retain its value in most others.

That said, it seems clear to me that the Book of Mormon does function differently as a witness of Christ if it is understood to be historical than if it is understood to not be historical. A Book of Mormon not understood to be historical still teaches the same doctrine of Christ and pattern for Christlike living and still, as Seth and MFB describe, can draw people closer to Christ. But it does not still provide an independent historical witness of Christ's existence and resurrection. And its non-historical status may be taken to imply (though it would not require) that other elements of the Restoration (e.g., priesthood restoration) are similarly nonliteral.

A historical Book of Mormon, on the other hand, entails a literal Resurrection of Christ and implies a literal latter-day priesthood restoration (just as Christ literally came to give baptismal power to the Nephites).

However I think it overstates the case to say that belief in a historical Book of Mormon "demonstrates" the reality of the Resurrection. The Book of Mormon can only demonstrate the historicity of the Resurrection if the historicity of the Book of Mormon itself can be demonstrated. But one's embrace of the Book of Mormon is not a matter of complete "demonstration" as a historical text: it involves the exercise of faith.

So, as I see it, it is a mistake to say that Book of Mormon historicity makes all the difference in how it functions. But it is just as much a mistake to say that it makes no difference. A historical Book of Mormon obviously has some different implications than a non-historical one. And it functions differently, in some substantive ways, as a witness of Christ.

Don

I agree completely.

[mfbukowski]

Historicity refers to ontology of past events. Literality refers to qualities of meaning in a text.

Just to clarify, I understand your point of view, and I understand your distinction, as a view of language especially historical discourse, with which I disagree.

I disagree with the dualism, that's "all" ultimately between what is said about history, if taken literally, and it's ontological status. I think in these situations the line between what people think "actually happened" and what in fact "actually happened" is pretty non-existent, primarily because one cannot know what happened- just what is reported in history.

As you know these are VERY complex issues and ultimately the dualism, is, I think, unfounded. I don't doubt for a minute that you have good reasons for your position- I think we just differ on the ontology of it all.

It is hard to imagine how we are to know the "reality" of things beyond the cumulative pool of what has been reported on historical events. And regarding the events of the BOM, we have only one report, the BOM itself.

That doesn't mean it is NOT historical, just that the events reported have so far not been corroborated by other sources.

In such a case I am not sure that a distinction between literalness and ontology makes a difference that can ever be verified.

Both my parents are now dead. I could tell you stories all day about my childhood and there would be no way to verify what actually happened and what my memories are. What is the "truth" becomes almost irrelevant when there is no way of determining what happened. So at some point, the story is just as important as the truth because you cannot tell the difference.

[mfbukowski]

I understand that fiction can teach divine truths. Of course it can. That's not, and never has been, the point of the discussion.

The problem is that a fictional BOM wreaks havoc with the foundational claims of JS regarding theophany, Moroni, golden plates, etc.

The question is not, and never has been, how the BOM functions as a purveyor of divine truth. The question is what are the implications for the prophetic claims of JS. It's two different questions. It is two different questions. I'm asking about the implications for JS, while the defenders of a fictional BOM refuse to deal with that issue, and change the subject.

But there is a difference between what the truth is, and how we can know what it is. As I see it, when we cannot know what it is, it becomes irrelevant. We accept the metaphor for the good it does in our lives and stop worrying about it, and take it on faith.

[mfbukowski]

Importantly, for those who leave on the most accelerated schedule, it's because they've bought into this "all or nothing" false dichotomy. Once someone begins to have cognitive dissonance, an emotional cascade caused by a total collapse of the Church faith schema ensues, particularly if 'all true or all fraud' thinking is at the base of the schema.

I totally agree and frankly that is why I post at all. It is just a tragedy- a full on, horrifying, stinking tragedy that people would be turned from the gospel of Jesus Christ because of a false understanding of what history is or what science is.

I see it every day and it horrifies me every day, so I write one more post hoping it will make a difference. On rare rare occasions it does, but they are rare indeed.

[mfbukowski]

You can always come back. We need more in the middle... :-)

Why do you identify with those in the middle? I identify as a True Believing Mormon all the way- and I seem to agree with you a lot.

We don't need a middle! We need both of YOU over with us in TBM land!

[mfbukowski]

I am personally convinced that one simply cannot come to know Christ as he truly is without regarding the Book of Mormon as an authentic historical account. It must be understood in those terms in order to reveal God to its readers.

Ah but that is the point! Is "regarding it to be an authentic historic account" the same is it BEING an authentic historic account?

I am not sure there can be a difference, and if there is, in such a case, I am not sure that the difference MAKES much difference.

After all, as you say, what makes the difference is not the unknowable "fact" of historicity but whether or not we regard it as historical.

Edited August 21, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Libs]

Why do you identify with those in the middle? I identify as a True Believing Mormon all the way- and I seem to agree with you a lot.

We don't need a middle! We need both of YOU over with us in TBM land!

But, we are where we are, Mf...and, if there were more acceptance of the "middle", maybe some of us wouldn't feel so hesitant to come back.

I don't think people stay in one "position" all the time, anyway. Yesterdays "middle wayers" may be tomorrow's TBM's...and today's TBM's could very well be tomorrow's "middle way".

[Nunya D. Bidness]

I have read this discussion with great interest. I believe the BOM is ancient, even though I also think that it contains some things that have to be fictional (re) constructions by Mormon. I agree with Bill Hamblin that it makes no sense for a real God to create fictional stories that he then represents as real stories in order to convince people that the central figure of the fictional narrative is actually ontologically real. It's inefficient as hell, for one thing. Anyway, I do wonder why an individual who does not believe that the Book of Mormon is an ancient book about real civilizations, etc., would find it of much use. What's the motivation? I'm being sincere in asking that question.

[Kevin Christensen]

The motivation, I think, is to get away from "all-or-nothing" thinking. A person may have had many postiive experiences within LDS culture, or elsewhere, for that matter, and does not know how to resolve their perceived issues with the Book of Mormon. "What about steel? What about DNA? What about B. H. Roberts?" or what have you. (For the record, I personally don't see any of these as serious problems.)

On the other hand, experiences like these, from the my essay, "A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience."

Like it or not, people within the Mormon tradition can and do enjoy the full range of all the experiential and historic aspects of religion, along with access to rich symbolism. Each aspect becomes like a thread in a rope: awe at the creation, numinous and mystic encounter, moments of reorientation of the mind, and reconciliation of the heart, moral obligation, the likening of scriptures to ourselves, making ancient stories into personal biography, dipping into the common mythic experience of humankind, or any number of individual historic events that define and bind our community. Like it or not, when you look at the Mormon community and the Mormon faith at this level of core experience, all that defines religion anywhere exists here. Therefore, like it or not, at the outset, any assessment of the religious value of Mormonism should admit that here the fountain of living waters flows briskly. In assessing Mormonism, in dealing with questions raised about any particular thread in what can be a complex bundle of threads of varied strengths, some more significant than others, but no single thread carrying all the weight, keep in mind that the validity of Mormon spiritual life must be accepted as a given.

Those who don't think in all or nothing terms, or who don't want to, may want to deal with their issues by putting the weight of faith elsewhere, selecting a different "portion of the word."

This is a different perspective than some who want to use their problem issues as leverage to completely overturn the truth claims of the LDS community.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Libs]

For me, the Book of Mormon was the thread that was (is) holding me to the church. I had my confirmation of the church through that book. So, when questions about the historicity started popping up (from critics, etc), causing me to question... giving myself permission to see the book as inspired fiction, was just a way of continuing to hold onto that portion of my testimony. Then, whether or not it was true history became irrelevant.

It's not that important to me, today, to know one way or the other. I have a very solid testimony of Jesus Christ...and I still believe most of the Book of Mormon was inspired by God.

[Bill Hamblin]

The motivation, I think, is to get away from "all-or-nothing" thinking. A person may have had many postiive experiences within LDS culture, or elsewhere, for that matter, and does not know how to resolve their perceived issues with the Book of Mormon. "What about steel? What about DNA? What about B. H. Roberts?" or what have you. (For the record, I personally don't see any of these as serious problems.)

On the other hand, experiences like these, from the my essay, "A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience."

Those who don't think in all or nothing terms, or who don't want to, may want to deal with their issues by putting the weight of faith elsewhere, selecting a different "portion of the word."

This is a different perspective than some who want to use their problem issues as leverage to completely overturn the truth claims of the LDS community.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

While there are, of course, numerous non-binary issues, there are, in fact, some issues which necessarily are binary--that is "all or nothing." This is especially true with questions of existence or non-existence of something. That is: there either is a God, or there is not. There either was a historical Alexander the Great, or there was not. Jesus either really existed or he did not. He was resurrected from the dead, or he was not. The existence or non-existence of the Nephites and the golden plates is one of those issues. That is to say, JS either really had ancient golden plates that were written by Nephite prophets, or he did not. I think that if he didn't, the unavoidable logical implication is that he was a false prophet.

[Veles]

While there are, of course, numerous non-binary issues, [...] The existence or non-existence of the Nephites and the golden plates is one of those issues. That is to say, JS either really had ancient golden plates that were written by Nephite prophets, or he did not. I think that if he didn't, the unavoidable logical implication is that he was a false prophet.

I'm new here, and also in the Church, is difficult for me to understand everything wrote in this thread, but... seems to me that the "all-or-nothing" thinking (or non-binary issues) don't mean what you wrote. At all.

Many members here expressed very clear this concept: they don't believe in the historical existence of the Nephites, but still they have a strong testimony in the Church and in JS as a real TRUE prophet.

The question: why is this bad for you?

Personally, as a recent convert, I try to live the Gospel as taught to me by missionaries, but don't see nothing wrong if other members believe in a third way, as explained by Wayfarer...

[Cobalt-70]

You're still answering the wrong question. That's not what I asked.

I answered your question. You just don't like the answer. A fictional book (or even an essay, for that matter) can demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ.

[Cobalt-70]

Obfuscating again. The question is not about YOU and your personal beliefs The question is about logic.

Can a fictional Book of Mormon demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ?

Can Superman comics demonstrate that Superman exists?

Does Lord of the Rings demonstrate that Gollum exists?

That's a horrible analogy. Your question was whether the Book of Mormon can demonstrate that "Jesus is the Christ." Not "whether Jesus existed." A better analogy would be to ask whether the Superman comics demonstrates that Superman is the most powerful superhero, or whether the Lord of the Rings demonstrates that Gollum was a hobbit. In all three cases, the answer is yes.

[Cobalt-70]

2 Nephi Chapter 10 is referring to the land in the context of the Gentiles, not the Nephites. It's a prophecy of the future.

Again, have there been Gentile Kings upon the land of promise?

Yes, the "land of promise" (that is, Central America, if you accept what the LGM folks are selling) has had gentile kings. There were at least a couple of kings in early modern Mexico. King Maximilian I of Mexico, in fact, was born in Vienna, and was about as "gentile" as they come.

[zerinus]

I have read this discussion with great interest. I believe the BOM is ancient, even though I also think that it contains some things that have to be fictional (re) constructions by Mormon. I agree with Bill Hamblin that it makes no sense for a real God to create fictional stories that he then represents as real stories in order to convince people that the central figure of the fictional narrative is actually ontologically real. It's inefficient as hell, for one thing. Anyway, I do wonder why an individual who does not believe that the Book of Mormon is an ancient book about real civilizations, etc., would find it of much use. What's the motivation? I'm being sincere in asking that question.

A more relevant question would be, How many active Church members are there who actually believe in the "fictional theory" of the Book of Mormon (apart from the few who have posted in this thread, which is not representative of the whole Church)? As far as I know, nobody has conducted a survey to find out. Perhaps we can all conduct our own surveys. We can ask members of our respective wards to see how many of them believe in the "fictional theory" of the book of Mormon, and report back the result. My own opinion is that their numbers would be very small, too small to be significant to the Church in real terms, which renders the discussion of it somewhat redundant.

I also think that people's faiths and testimies are in various stages of development. There are people in the Church who have never read the Book of Mormon. But all are equally valued members of the Church, needing to be "nourished by the good word of God".

Edited August 22, 2012 by zerinus

[volgadon]

Yes, the "land of promise" (that is, Central America, if you accept what the LGM folks are selling) has had gentile kings. There were at least a couple of kings in early modern Mexico. King Maximilian I of Mexico, in fact, was born in Vienna, and was about as "gentile" as they come.

And was shot.