A Fictional Book Of Mormon?

[mfbukowski]

Ben has it exactly right again, as usual.

Agreed.

Don't know that much more needs to be said.

Yet, as with the other question about defining "Mormon"- what do we do with those who think the BOM is fictional?

Do we kick them out?

I have this continuing impression that all these questions are ultimately irrelevant to the practice of Mormonism. I am not sure why these are important questions because it eventually all boils down to I believe a point Elder Oaks makes with two words:

"Therefore, what?"

What is the point of the exercise? What of this discussion do we take into our lives and what actions should be employed- Therefore, What?

Edited August 16, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

But, whatever works for you is fine.

Then why did you bring it up?

[Bart Burk]

Then why did you bring it up?

Just because in reading the Book of Mormon it seems to me to be historical if I read it in that setting. Others may find the same thing reading it in a Mesoamerican setting. Plus I find it interesting!

Edited August 16, 2012 by Bart Burk

[cursor]

Since the Book of Mormon is a genuine, ancient document ... that coincides with very real [identifiable] societies (in a specific geographic era, and within specific time-frames), we can best appreciate/understand what their histories (including prophetic warnings) offer to us when we can responsibly identify those corresponding real-world, ancient cultures. Brigham Young once said, "Do you read the Scriptures, my brethren and sisters, as though you were writing them a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years ago? Do you read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them? If you do not feel thus, it is your privilege to do so."

The more effectively we can close the [ir]reality-gap between 1) the Book of Mormon events and 2) known life details of the corresponding real-world cultures, the more we can understand the true significance of the prophetic instruction contained within that ancient codex.

If we, for whatever cause, fail to identify those target cultures ... we're significantly missing out on insight that we might otherwise enjoy. "Dig, yea, dig deep, baby." (cursor 4:18)

Edited August 16, 2012 by cursor

[Bart Burk]

Since the Book of Mormon is a genuine, ancient document ... that coincides with very real [identifiable] societies (in a specific geographic era, and within specific time-frames), we can best appreciate/understand what their histories (including prophetic warnings) offer to us when we can responsibly identify those corresponding real-world, ancient cultures. Brigham Young once said, "Do you read the Scriptures, my brethren and sisters, as though you were writing them a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years ago? Do you read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them? If you do not feel thus, it is your privilege to do so."

The more effectively we can close the [ir]reality-gap between 1) the Book of Mormon events and 2) known life details of the corresponding real-world cultures, the more we can understand the true significance of the prophetic instruction contained within that ancient codex.

If we, for whatever cause, fail to identify those target cultures ... we're significantly missing out on insight that we might otherwise enjoy. "Dig, yea, dig deep, baby." (cursor 4:18)

I'm not convinced we need to worry too much about that since the main purpose of the Book of Mormon is to testify of Christ. it is interesting though.

[Rivers]

I'm kinda feelin' dumb here, so then do you not believe they lived in Mesoamerica? I've always believed it was in Western New York also, but the story now is the BOM takes place in Mesoamerica and Nephi carried the plates for 35 years to NY.

http://www.mormonwik..._Book_of_Mormon

It was Moroni who buried the plates. And after having his people destroyed and on the run from his enemies, I'm sure he had plenty of time to walk to New York.

[theplains]

Reading it as a text occurring in Mesoamerica caused me to question it. But when I accepted Cumorah was in New York and a New York setting, the prophecies, etc. made sense from that perspective. I was drawn back to it after that.

Which prophecies give the "New York setting" a better perspective for you?

Thanks,

Jim

[Bart Burk]

Which prophecies give the "New York setting" a better perspective for you?

Thanks,

Jim

The land would be a land of freedom with no kings on the land.

http://www.bookofmormonlands.com/bomlands_004.htm

Edited August 16, 2012 by Bart Burk

[cursor]

I'm not convinced we need to worry too much about that since the main purpose of the Book of Mormon is to testify of Christ. it is interesting though.

Brigham Young strongly suggested that there is a significant amount of real value that can the realized by more/most intimately understanding related historical events. He seemed to feel that the worth was significant. Anything less is, well, unnecessarily numbed..

[cursor]

There were kings mentioned within the Book of Mormon text, Bart.

[inquiringmind]

Reading it as a text occurring in Mesoamerica caused me to question it. But when I accepted Cumorah was in New York and a New York setting, the prophecies, etc. made sense from that perspective. I was drawn back to it after that.

Did you have an "aha" moment?

Could God have been telling you Cumorah was in New York?

[Bart Burk]

Did you have an "aha" moment?

Could God have been telling you Cumorah was in New York?

I just never have seen anything which realistically indicates there was another one.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Bart Burk

[cursor]

Hi Bart. I sent the link that that you referenced above to my dad (the author of the two responsible books that referenced earlier). While I don't want to burst your bubble, this is what he had to say (he's 88 years old, and has spent his entire professional [anthropological] career focused on this primary theme):

Well, my allotted five minutes to waste is up, but I have seen enough. What a pair of flakes! Such mental processing! But apparently this is sufficient for the flat earth these folks live on. I am glad this notion was not around when I did the Source Book or I would have had to make a decision whether this was serious enough to include, or whether, like the Malay peninsula “model”, it was totally ignorable.

Now it is ignorable.

As I have have learned, Bart, one can either start their studies from the ground floor ... or you can take the advice of Sir Isaac Newton and begin by "stand[ing] on the shoulders of giants."

[Analytics]

In his blog entry, Hamblin exhibits black-and-white thinking. Joseph Smith was either a true prophet, a liar, or a lunatic. What is interesting is that the Book of Mormon itself also expresses black and white thinking.

The Book of Mormon says,

Wherefore, a man being evil cannot do that which is good; neither will he give a good gift.

For behold, a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water; wherefore, a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ; and if he follow Christ he cannot be a servant of the devil.

Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.

But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.

(Moroni 7:10-13)

While Hamblin’s black-and-white thinking is used to map a gray Book of Mormon into the liar/lunatic camp, the Book of Mormon’s black-and-white thinking is used to map itself into the godly camp; if one concludes that the Book of Mormon isn’t an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript that is okay—the book invites and entices goodness, therefore it must be from God.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Analytics

[mfbukowski]

What exactly has all this BOM geography stuff have to do with the question at hand?

Have we abandoned the original discussion?

[Bart Burk]

What exactly has all this BOM geography stuff have to do with the question at hand?

Have we abandoned the original discussion?

I would think belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is required. If one rejects the historicity of the BOM you might as well be talking about The Lord of the Rings. Nobody believes Tolkien was a prophet. The promises in the BOM would be meaningless if Nephites are fictional.

[mfbukowski]

I would think belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is required. If one rejects the historicity of the BOM you might as well be talking about The Lord of the Rings. Nobody believes Tolkien was a prophet. The promises in the BOM would be meaningless if Nephites are fictional.

But WHERE all this happened is a secondary question to IF it happened at all. That seems totally obvious to me. If the BOM is fictional (I do not believe it is fictional) what supposed geography fits the story is irrelevant.

It's like arguing if Santa Claus' beard is really white or not, or if his suit is red or maroon. That would truly be a waste of time.

[Bart Burk]

But WHERE all this happened is a secondary question to IF it happened at all. That seems totally obvious to me. If the BOM is fictional (I do not believe it is fictional) what supposed geography fits the story is irrelevant.

It's like arguing if Santa Claus' beard is really white or not, or if his suit is red or maroon. That would truly be a waste of time.

I agree completely. I made a rather innocent throw-away statement on geography and it really was blown up. It must be a hot button issue around here.

[mfbukowski]

I agree completely. I made a rather innocent throw-away statement on geography and it really was blown up. It must be a hot button issue around here.

With some posters it is the ONLY button.

[cursor]

What exactly has all this BOM geography stuff have to do with the question at hand?

Have we abandoned the original discussion?

No, of course not. The thread title is, "A Fictional Book of Mormon?" That assumes no real people, and no real world location.

The initial paragraph of the referenced blog suggests that "some Latter-day Saints insist that the Book of Mormon can be inspired fiction and still be scripture." I say this is unnecessarily short-sighted (for those who might so believe). I suggest that for serious thinkers ... even for those that modestly dig; a cerebral and a spiritual connection with the codex (a true ancient record, written by real and specific cultures) can be realized ... in a degree which is NOT possible if it only exists as fiction. Accurately identifying ancient cultures and related geography works towards that end.

[cursor]

With some posters it is the ONLY button.

???

This is a discussion forum ... right?. When gospel principles are bought up, like the possibility that it's acceptable that the Book of Mormon is simply inspired fiction, we [try to] responsibly respond. Right? <shrug> Maybe someday I'll get to 13K+ posts and get a commesurate degree of respect. I'm just a newby, after all.

Edited August 16, 2012 by cursor

[Ahab]

I see. God was able to reveal the Book of Mormon to JS, but forgot to tell him it was fiction.

For some reason I feel you're not being entirely serious here. Just a tad of sarcasm, maybe?

In what way do you think God revealed the Book of Mormon to Joseph? I mean, in what way are you using the word "reveal".

You know he showed him where the plates were through Moroni and the gift of God given through him, but in what other way did God reveal the Book of Mormon to him?

I think you know as well as I do that the words Joseph used were the best words he could come up with given his own knowledge of the English language and what God inspired him to see. God works with us as we are, using the language(s) that we are already familiar with, and when we're inspired we're using our own vocabulary and manner of speech which often includes some idiosyncratic phrasing. That's why we need the Holy Spirit to help us understand scripture. It's not that the words are incorrect, necessarily, although sometimes they may be. People often say things while meaning something other than what their words actually mean.

Now please confirm you already know this stuff, Bill. You're scaring me a little into thinking I shouldn't be learning from you.

p.s. Sometimes I'm being playful when people seem to be taking me too seriously.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

???

This is a discussion forum ... right?. When gospel principles are bought up, like the possibility that it's acceptable that the Book of Mormon is simply inspired fiction, we [try to] responsibly respond. Right? <shrug> Maybe someday I'll get to 13K+ posts and get a commesurate degree of respect. I'm just a newby, after all.

I didn't mean to offend you- perhaps it would be relevant to show why a discussion of where the BOM MIGHT have occurred even if it IS fiction is relevant.

I just don't see why it is. I was just raising the question and didn't mean to offend anyone.

And in fact I am not proud of having made 13k posts- it only shows how much time I have....... devoted...... to this board- probably way too much.

[Ahab]

Thanks for providing this, it's really plain and easy to read over!

Yes, but is what he saying true or not? That's the question you should concern yourself with primarily, I think.

[mfbukowski]

When I became a member, I was also looking into the Baha'i faith which was founded by one who called himself a "prophet" named Baha'u'llah, who believed he had received a body of revelation which became the origins of that faith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27u%27ll%C3%A1h

Some Baha'is in fact think that Joseph Smith might have been a prophet

I would wonder if any here might think that Baha'u'llah's writings are "fiction" or if they might offer value. I think they do offer spiritual insight and can be valuable writings. I of course do not accept him as a prophet.

I think Ben's earlier comments are highly relevant here. I think almost any religious writings can offer value and insight even if we do not regard them as scripture.