A Fictional Book Of Mormon?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What I would like to see from those who treat the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction would be readings that emphasize what inspires them, rather than putting forth self justifications for not taking it seriously as history, while asserting, without meaningful demonstration, that there is something inspiring going on.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Indeed.

[mfbukowski]

What I would like to see from those who treat the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction would be readings that emphasize what inspires them, rather than putting forth self justifications for not taking it seriously as history, while asserting, without meaningful demonstration, that there is something inspiring going on.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I am not sure that there is anyone at least on this thread who actually believes that- or at least they have not said so to my recollection. But it IS an excellent point.

Edited August 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

What I would like to see from those who treat the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction would be readings that emphasize what inspires them, rather than putting forth self justifications for not taking it seriously as history, while asserting, without meaningful demonstration, that there is something inspiring going on.

For me, the Book of Mormon is certainly inspiring (far more so than the Bible, in fact), but the term "inspired fiction" does not mean that it inspires me. It means that God inspired it. It's the word of God, and despite its fictional nature, it is the "most correct book" in the sense that it will bring somebody closer to Christ than any other book. Like any work of fiction, it has genre, plot, themes, and characters, and except for a few expositions here and there on topics of interest to Smith, they are all designed to make the point that Christ loves and does not forget his people.

[Libs]

Kevin, I'm not sure I understand. Are you looking for a discussion of which Book of Mormon verses inspire? Or how the whole book inspires?

I can think of a lot of verses that inspired me, that are probably not a physical reality. Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life would be at the top of the list.

[moonlight12]

. . . A prophet who creates fictional scripture in the fashion you propose is no prophet at all. Rather, if this were the nature of the production of the Book of Mormon, it would make the book false, and Joseph Smith a fraud. It is an apostate doctrine, and those who are persuaded thereby, if they are not already, will soon become apostates themselves.

Yes! This should be self-evident (but obviously it's not to some active on this thread). How can anyone have any credibility in Joseph Smith's prophethood (to say nothing of his integrity) if he 1) wrote the Book of Mormon under "inspiration" by his own hand, and 2) concocted an elaborate cover story--beginning with the First Vision-- to persuade readers that he translated the book from ancient writings engraved on plates? Under that scenario, Joseph Smith would be a certified fraud. By extension, how can anyone have any credibility in LDS prophets who have repeatedly affirmed that the Book of Mormon was produced just as Joseph Smith said it was? I may be accused of closed-minded orthodoxy in this "progressive" postmodern era, but if the Book of Mormon is a fabrication ("inspired" or otherwise), and if all of our prophets beginning with Joseph have falsely testified that the book is a record of an ancient peoples who inhabited the Americas, with what are we left as the foundational underpinning of our faith?

Answer: Nothing.

[cwald]

I am sorry but this is false. We care about the truth of what is going on. We are not interested in pandering to some peoples fantasies. And we are not about scoring points. And I dare say that we discuss all sorts of "other opinions and alternative faiths and beliefs". What you don't like is that we just don't accept them and jump up and down about them.

Funny thing is that you essentially just attacked everyone on this board. And then you wonder why people get on your case for your opinion. So, we see that you can dish it but your sure as hell cant take it.

You know what is even more funny? You just helped support my point I was trying to make...fantasies? Don't like what I have to say, attack the poster.

[mfbukowski]

I am not sure that there is anyone at least on this thread who actually believes that- or at least they have not said so to my recollection. But it IS an excellent point.

OOPS I guess I excluded Cobalt70.

And that's all I have to say on that subject.

[cwald]

Perhaps one of the great inspirational themes of the BOM, to me, whether it is historical or not, is how God calls some really shady characters to do his work for him. People who must have been really bad dudes like Alma and the sons of Mosiah.

He takes these guys, works with them, helps them find truth and then uses them as prophets and teachers to help the people. That is inspirational to me...that one does not have to be perfect and the never have sinned for god to recognize one's value and use one to further his purposes. God does not judge like men judge. He will call whomever he chooses to do his work.

[robuchan]

Kevin, I'm not sure I understand. Are you looking for a discussion of which Book of Mormon verses inspire? Or how the whole book inspires?

I can think of a lot of verses that inspired me, that are probably not a physical reality. Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life would be at the top of the list.

I don't understand the question, either, but I include myself in the category of people that believe the BOM is good/inspiring/inspired without believing it is historical.

[Kevin Christensen]

Okay.. some people get it. Some don't. Take Shakespeare. I'm an English Major, fond of literature, fond of words. If the question is, does Shakespeare produce Inspired fiction, how does one demonstrate the "inspired" aspect in such a way that his fiction carries authority to bind and guide a person's life?

I've cited Eugene England's essay, "Shakespeare and the At-onement of Christ" which actually is one of my favorite essays on the real power of the atonement. Here are a few things that England does not do. He does not waste a lot of space discussing earlier uses of the plots that Shakespeare used, nor variants in manuscripts, nor English politics, nor the authorship controversies, nor does he apply Marxist or Feminist or Freudian criticism. He doesn't focus on Regan and Goneril as negative portrayals in Lear and then claim that Shakespeare was a misogynist. He doesn't wax indignant about the excessive violence in the blinding of Glouster. He doesn't suggest that the Lear would be better if it had a happy ending. He doesn't give a social history of the quarrels among scholars, and criticizing them for not getting along the way that detached and objective scholars should if they are really interested in truth. He doesn't complain about believing scholars as apologists. He goes directly to the plays. He treats the characters with integrity regarding their lives within the play and their immediate relevance outside. He notices important allusions to scripture as a way of showing that the Christian message is inherent in the plays, not imposed upon them. He likens what he reads to his own experiences with the atonement. When he talks about the a performance of The Winter's Tale, he relates the story of the director halting a rehearsal to observe "there is something holy going on here..."

If some believe the Book of Mormon to be inspired fiction, then show how it inspires, rather than just assert that it does. Plant the seed, nurture it, and show something that grows.

It happens that even a person manages to do this, the issue of Book of Mormon historicity does not behave like an elephant in the room, quietly pretending to be just a flat, two dimensional portrait, far less, an elephant breathing as quietly as possible and pretending not to be there so as to break the concentration of truely objective scholars. The historicity question is more like a three ring circus. Just by existing it violates the polite protocols of Religious Studies programs, not just by making testable assertions about God, angels, the Bible, and Joseph Smith and his associates, but also about Jerusalem, the Arabian Penninsula, and the societies around the Sidon and the Narrow strip of wilderness, and about the transmission of the Bible. And it does so in the not so recent past, claiming visions in "an age of railways" where nothing can be subsumed as distant legend, myth, or once upon a time. And unlike Tolkien or Shakespeare or for that matter, other modern gospels, it makes a wide range of testable assertions. Sterling McMurrin can confidently assert that "You don't get books from angels and translate them by revelation. It's just that simple." Just by existing the book violates the prediction. And while McMurrin never bothered to read it, others have done so, testing many of the assertions and who consequentally report that explaning the book in comprehensive detail is not that simple.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited August 25, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[aka]

Sterling McMurrin can confidently assert that "You don't get books from angels and translate them by revelation. It's just that simple." Just by existing the book violates the prediction. And while McMurrin never bothered to read it, others have done so, testing many of the assertions and who consequentally report that explaning the book in comprehensive detail is not that simple.

I'm not questioning your assertion that Sterling McMurrin never read the Book of Mormon but it is suprising. Do you have a reference?

If I remember correctly, I think that he was a church insitutue teacher in Arizona early in his career and also the son of a general authority. You'd think he would have done at least some reading in the Book of Mormon.

Thank you.

Edited August 25, 2012 by aka

[robuchan]

Okay.. some people get it. Some don't. Take Shakespeare. I'm an English Major, fond of literature, fond of words. If the question is, does Shakespeare produce Inspired fiction, how does one demonstrate the "inspired" aspect in such a way that his fiction carries authority to bind and guide a person's life?

I've cited Eugene England's essay, "Shakespeare and the At-onement of Christ" which actually is one of my favorite essays on the real power of the atonement. Here are a few things that England does not do. He does not waste a lot of space discussing earlier uses of the plots that Shakespeare used, nor variants in manuscripts, nor English politics, nor the authorship controversies, nor does he apply Marxist or Feminist or Freudian criticism. He doesn't focus on Regan and Goneril as negative portrayals in Lear and then claim that Shakespeare was a misogynist. He doesn't wax indignant about the excessive violence in the blinding of Glouster. He doesn't suggest that the Lear would be better if it had a happy ending. He doesn't give a social history of the quarrels among scholars, and criticizing them for not getting along the way that detached and objective scholars should if they are really interested in truth. He doesn't complain about believing scholars as apologists. He goes directly to the plays. He treats the characters with integrity regarding their lives within the play and their immediate relevance outside. He notices important allusions to scripture as a way of showing that the Christian message is inherent in the plays, not imposed upon them. He likens what he reads to his own experiences with the atonement. When he talks about the a performance of The Winter's Tale, he relates the story of the director halting a rehearsal to observe "there is something holy going on here..."

If some believe the Book of Mormon to be inspired fiction, then show how it inspires, rather than just assert that it does. Plant the seed, nurture it, and show something that grows.

It happens that even a person manages to do this, the issue of Book of Mormon historicity does not behave like an elephant in the room, quietly pretending to be just a flat, two dimensional portrait, far less, an elephant breathing as quietly as possible and pretending not to be there so as to break the concentration of truely objective scholars. The historicity question is more like a three ring circus. Just by existing it violates the polite protocols of Religious Studies programs, not just by making testable assertions about God, angels, the Bible, and Joseph Smith and his associates, but also about Jerusalem, the Arabian Penninsula, and the societies around the Sidon and the Narrow strip of wilderness, and about the transmission of the Bible. And it does so in the not so recent past, claiming visions in "an age of railways" where nothing can be subsumed as distant legend, myth, or once upon a time. And unlike Tolkien or Shakespeare or for that matter, other modern gospels, it makes a wide range of testable assertions. Sterling McMurrin can confidently assert that "You don't get books from angels and translate them by revelation. It's just that simple." Just by existing the book violates the prediction. And while McMurrin never bothered to read it, others have done so, testing many of the assertions and who consequentally report that explaning the book in comprehensive detail is not that simple.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I still don't understand your point.

I like the BOM. I find much of it inspiring. I think it can lead someone to develop a relationship with their Savior and feel the love of God. But I am sure the BOM is fiction.

[Kevin Christensen]

I'm not questioning your assertion that Sterling McMurrin never read the Book of Mormon but it is suprising. Do you have a reference?

If I remember correctly, I think that he was an church insitutue teacher in Arizona early in his career and also the son of a general authority. You'd think he would have done at least some reading in the Book of Mormon.

Thank you.

My source is note 63 from a Louis Midgely essay in the FARMS Review 16:1

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=1&id=536

See George D. Smith, "The History of Mormonism and Church Authorities: An Interview with Sterling M. McMurrin," Free Inquiry 4/1 (1983—84): 32—34, which is a shortened version of "An Interview with Sterling M. McMurrin by Blake Ostler," Dialogue 17/1 (1984): 18—43, which originally appeared in the 7th East Press on 11 January 1983. McMurrin, it should be noted, liked to report that he had "never read the entire Book of Mormon." McMurrin, Matters of Conscience, 114. He was not the least bit uncomfortable in boasting about this lacuna in his literary endeavors, despite Thomas F. O'Dea's pungent observation back in 1957 that "the Book of Mormon has not been universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it." Thomas F. O'Dea, The Mormons (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 26.

I quite enjoyed McMurrin's Theological Foundations of Mormonism and a few other things. But his major contributions on the Book of Mormon amount to an essay in the Signature publication of the Roberts Study, a Sunstone essay complaining that the treatment of the Book of Mormon in the Encylopedia was too orthodox, and the famous quote from the Oster interview.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[robuchan]

Kevin, are you being intentionally vague on this? What's your point?

The Bible and Book of Mormon were inspiring to me when I believed them to be true, historical documents. They are still inspiring to me though i don't believe them to be literal or historical (obviously some of the Bible is literal and actual but i don't believe all of it to be).

It's a Wonderful Life is inspiring to me, though I believe it to be fiction. This is the same case both back when I was a literal believer in the BOM and now that I'm not.

The lives of my pioneer ancestors are inspiring to me. They are true, actual events.

Job was always inspiring to me, even after as a TBM I learned that most people think he's a fictional character.

Clearly both believers and non-believers find both literal scripture and fiction to be inspiring.

Edited August 25, 2012 by robuchan

[Storm Rider]

Saying I believe in an inspired, fictional Book of Mormon is like saying that I believe in a inspired, fictional Jesus as the Savior. It really just does not make sense. It is an attempt to straddle the world of faith while putting one's faith firmly in the arm of flesh. It is an untenable situation where either a decision must be made or that which is lukewarm gets spit out.

Being a person of faith is not for the weak of heart or for the proud. It requires a life of humility and willingness to believe that God will provide all the answers in time.

[ERayR]

I am sorry but this is false. We care about the truth of what is going on. We are not interested in pandering to some peoples fantasies. And we are not about scoring points. And I dare say that we discuss all sorts of "other opinions and alternative faiths and beliefs". What you don't like is that we just don't accept them and jump up and down about them.

Funny thing is that you essentially just attacked everyone on this board. And then you wonder why people get on your case for your opinion. So, we see that you can dish it but your sure as hell cant take it.

Ah come now for me it is all about scoring poins. For each ten points I get star on my chart.

[Bill Hamblin]

Kevin, are you being intentionally vague on this? What's your point?

The Bible and Book of Mormon were inspiring to me when I believed them to be true, historical documents. They are still inspiring to me though i don't believe them to be literal or historical (obviously some of the Bible is literal and actual but i don't believe all of it to be).

It's a Wonderful Life is inspiring to me, though I believe it to be fiction. This is the same case both back when I was a literal believer in the BOM and now that I'm not.

The lives of my pioneer ancestors are inspiring to me. They are true, actual events.

Job was always inspiring to me, even after as a TBM I learned that most people think he's a fictional character.

Clearly both believers and non-believers find both literal scripture and fiction to be inspiring.

Many people are still missing the point. It is not a question of whether people find a fictional BOM inspiring. The question is:

1- Why does an fictional account of an imaginary visit of Jesus to a non-existent people testify of Christ?

2- Why should we take JS restoration narratives seriously if there were no golden plates and there was no Moroni?

[mfbukowski]

Okay.. some people get it. Some don't. Take Shakespeare. I'm an English Major, fond of literature, fond of words. If the question is, does Shakespeare produce Inspired fiction, how does one demonstrate the "inspired" aspect in such a way that his fiction carries authority to bind and guide a person's life?

I've cited Eugene England's essay, "Shakespeare and the At-onement of Christ" which actually is one of my favorite essays on the real power of the atonement. Here are a few things that England does not do. He does not waste a lot of space discussing earlier uses of the plots that Shakespeare used, nor variants in manuscripts, nor English politics, nor the authorship controversies, nor does he apply Marxist or Feminist or Freudian criticism. He doesn't focus on Regan and Goneril as negative portrayals in Lear and then claim that Shakespeare was a misogynist. He doesn't wax indignant about the excessive violence in the blinding of Glouster. He doesn't suggest that the Lear would be better if it had a happy ending. He doesn't give a social history of the quarrels among scholars, and criticizing them for not getting along the way that detached and objective scholars should if they are really interested in truth. He doesn't complain about believing scholars as apologists. He goes directly to the plays. He treats the characters with integrity regarding their lives within the play and their immediate relevance outside. He notices important allusions to scripture as a way of showing that the Christian message is inherent in the plays, not imposed upon them. He likens what he reads to his own experiences with the atonement. When he talks about the a performance of The Winter's Tale, he relates the story of the director halting a rehearsal to observe "there is something holy going on here..."

If some believe the Book of Mormon to be inspired fiction, then show how it inspires, rather than just assert that it does. Plant the seed, nurture it, and show something that grows.

It happens that even a person manages to do this, the issue of Book of Mormon historicity does not behave like an elephant in the room, quietly pretending to be just a flat, two dimensional portrait, far less, an elephant breathing as quietly as possible and pretending not to be there so as to break the concentration of truely objective scholars. The historicity question is more like a three ring circus. Just by existing it violates the polite protocols of Religious Studies programs, not just by making testable assertions about God, angels, the Bible, and Joseph Smith and his associates, but also about Jerusalem, the Arabian Penninsula, and the societies around the Sidon and the Narrow strip of wilderness, and about the transmission of the Bible. And it does so in the not so recent past, claiming visions in "an age of railways" where nothing can be subsumed as distant legend, myth, or once upon a time. And unlike Tolkien or Shakespeare or for that matter, other modern gospels, it makes a wide range of testable assertions. Sterling McMurrin can confidently assert that "You don't get books from angels and translate them by revelation. It's just that simple." Just by existing the book violates the prediction. And while McMurrin never bothered to read it, others have done so, testing many of the assertions and who consequentally report that explaning the book in comprehensive detail is not that simple.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Thanks.

You're right. I get it. Pretty phenomenal stuff when you think of it that way!

[mfbukowski]

Many people are still missing the point. It is not a question of whether people find a fictional BOM inspiring. The question is:

1- Why does an fictional account of an imaginary visit of Jesus to a non-existent people testify of Christ?

2- Why should we take JS restoration narratives seriously if there were no golden plates and there was no Moroni?

But this is a very complicated world where a lot of people lie about a lot of things for a lot of reasons, people have illusions, tell stories, dream dreams, have hallucinations, are ignorant and suggestible, and some will do anything to gain fame and make money and be revered by others. Finding out what is true especially in events we all think are "supernatural" is well-nigh impossible. Would a judge in a court of law conclude that angels gave Joseph plates with an ancient record of a people for whom there is at best, let's just say "scant" evidence?

The apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima were witnessed by three children who all told the same story regardless of how they were questioned, and indeed culminated in a miracles allegedly witnessed by thousands. Were they credible? What does that imply for Mormonism? Were they "fiction"? The children also received alleged "revelations" - were they fictional? Were they of the devil? Why would we believe or disbelieve any of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima

In fact, I was personally raised to believe all of this as a child. Which account is right- Our Lady of Fatima, or Joseph's? After all they "can't both be right"- or can they??

It's even an awfully complicated process to figure out what the word "true" even means, and the more you think about it, the harder it gets. That's why we have philosophers and they don't exactly agree on any of this either.

So in my opinion- if in this complex world of doubt, "all" people can muster is the view that the BOM is "fiction" but they find it inspiring and consider themselves members of the church and find a way for all this to give their lives meaning- who am I to question their experiences and motives and beliefs? Who am I to question their understanding?

If someone can muster the faith to believe that "a fictional account of an imaginary visit of Jesus to a non-existent people" testifies of Christ, or that Joseph's "restoration narratives should be taken seriously even though there were no golden plates and no Moroni", I say give that man a gold star for his faith and level of commitment - don't question his willingness to accept the gospel because his understanding is different than mine.

If you could not accept the gospel based on his understanding, that is understandable - for you. But his understanding of it all is obviously quite different than yours. So why question it? He is doing the right thing and doing his best to put it all together just as the rest of us are.

Edited August 25, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

So what is this- mass hysteria? "Fiction"- or Satan doing his best?

Were all these witness lying?

Sometimes it helps to put Mormonism in perspective and see it as others see us, to better understand their skepticism.

The Miracle of the Sun (Portuguese: O Milagre do Sol) was an event on 13 October 1917 in which 30,000 to 100,000 people, who were gathered near Fátima, Portugal, claimed to have witnessed extraordinary solar activity.

The people had gathered because three young shepherd children had predicted that at high noon the Blessed Virgin Mary would appear in a field in an area of Fatima called Cova da Iria. According to many witnesses, after a period of rain, the dark clouds broke and the sun appeared as an opaque, spinning disc in the sky.^[1] It was said to be significantly duller than normal, and to cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the shadows on the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds.^[1] The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern,^[1] frightening those who thought it a sign of the end of the world.^[2] Witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became "suddenly and completely dry, as well as the wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain that had been falling".^[3]

Estimates of number present range from 30,000 to 40,000 by Avelino de Almeida, writing for the Portuguese newspaper O Século,^[4] to 100,000, estimated by Dr. Joseph Garrett, professor of natural sciences at the University of Coimbra,^[5] both of whom were present that day.^[6]

The event was attributed by believers to Our Lady of Fátima, a reported apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to the children who had made predictions of the event on 13 July 1917,^[7] 19 August,^[8] and 13 September.^[9] The children stated that the Lady had promised them that she would on 13 October reveal her identity to them^[10] and provide a miracle "so that all may believe."^[11]

According to these reports, the event lasted approximately ten minutes.^[12] The three children also reported seeing a panorama of visions, including those of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of Saint Joseph blessing the people.^[13]

[moonlight12]

Many people are still missing the point. It is not a question of whether people find a fictional BOM inspiring. The question is:

1- Why does an fictional account of an imaginary visit of Jesus to a non-existent people testify of Christ?

2- Why should we take JS restoration narratives seriously if there were no golden plates and there was no Moroni?

Those two questions cut to the quick of this thread. Many who espouse a fictional BOM are making the matter unduly complicated in an effort to justify their position. If the BOM account is fictional, its claims are fictional (though by happenstance a handful may actually be true). Why is that so difficult for some people to grasp? One might as well believe that Harry Potter is/was an actual person who experienced all the phantasmagorical events Rowland attributed to him.

[robuchan]

Many people are still missing the point. It is not a question of whether people find a fictional BOM inspiring. The question is:

1- Why does an fictional account of an imaginary visit of Jesus to a non-existent people testify of Christ?

2- Why should we take JS restoration narratives seriously if there were no golden plates and there was no Moroni?

I don't disagree materially with your point.

The most generous I can be about an inspired BOM is what I wrote in this post.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58665-a-fictional-book-of-mormon/#entry1209162820

Kind of a "all roads lead to Rome" approach which certainly is far from mainstream Mormonism and a far less powerful view of the BOM and restored church.

My point with that post was to address KC's point, which I think I still don't understand.

[William James]

Thinking of the BoM as inspired fiction is not particularly problematic for me. Contrary to what most TBMs believe, the mere truth of the BoM does not demonstrate that the modern Utah church is true. Joseph might have been a fallen prophet, or maybe Brigham Young was not the right successor, or maybe the Church has fallen into apostasy since the days of Joseph and Brigham (at a minimum, we must acknowledge that the Church's doctrines, culture, and doctrinal emphasis are all dramatically different than in the 1830s and 1840s). So I don't feel like the LDS church rises and falls on the simple question of whether the BoM is an authentic historical record. I do not see why God could not inspire righteousness through fiction. Jesus frequently taught in parables, after all. And there are even scriptural examples of God instructing people to be deceptive to bring about greater purposes. What is important is that we seek wisdom wherever it can be found, whether that be in actual history, or in allegory.

[Cobalt-70]

If some believe the Book of Mormon to be inspired fiction, then show how it inspires, rather than just assert that it does. Plant the seed, nurture it, and show something that grows.

You are confusing "inspired fiction" with "inspiring fiction."

[Cobalt-70]

Many people are still missing the point. It is not a question of whether people find a fictional BOM inspiring. The question is:

1- Why does an fictional account of an imaginary visit of Jesus to a non-existent people testify of Christ?

The visit of Jesus to the Nephites may not be a historical event, but the account is nevertheless true. It teaches the profound truth that Jesus comes to find his lost sheep, wherever they are, to bring them to his fold.

By the way, don't think that this visit of Jesus would not also be "imaginary" even if it were a historical event. Since nobody who reads the Book of Mormon was there, the event only exists in their imagination, after reading the text. So we apprehend this event exactly the same way, regardless of whether it was historical or not. A fictional story can testify of Jesus just as well as a historical chronical, and probably even more so, because fictional stories are free to arrange genre, plot, theme, and character in a way that is most testimonially effective.

2- Why should we take JS restoration narratives seriously if there were no golden plates and there was no Moroni?

It doesn't really matter whether or not there were golden plates, because Joseph Smith never actually used them in the translation. And who said there was no Moroni? Obviously, Smith had a vision of Moroni. He was as real as any other character appearing in a vision.