A Fictional Book Of Mormon?

[Bill Hamblin]

I find it remarkable that marginal Mormons refuse to answer the very straightforward and simple questions I ask. Instead, when I discuss this issue with them, they alway obfuscate and equivocate. I have never had a straightforward answer to these questions from any marginal-Mormon. So I'll try one more time for clarity.

Can a fictional BOM demonstrate that Jesus if the Christ, the Son of the Living God?

Note I am not asking if a fictional BOM can help you be nice (the marginal Mormon equivocation for Christ-like).

Seth, will you answer this question?

[Cobalt-70]

"Nevertheless, my work shall go forth, for inasmuch as the knowledge of a Savior has come unto the world, through the testimony of the Jews, even so shall the cknowledge of a Savior come unto my people—

"And to the Nephites, and the Jacobites, and the Josephites, and the Zoramites, through the testimony of their fathers—

"And this testimony shall come to the knowledge of the Lamanites, and the Lemuelites, and the Ishmaelites, who dwindled in unbelief because of the iniquity of their fathers, whom the Lord has suffered to destroy their brethren the Nephites, because of their iniquities and their abominations.

"And for this very purpose are these plates preserved, which contain these records—that the promises of the Lord might be fulfilled, which he made to his people;

"And that the Lamanites might come to the knowledge of their fathers, and that they might know the promises of the Lord, and that they may believe the gospel and rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ, and be glorified through faith in his name, and that through their repentance they might be saved. Amen." (D&C 3:16-20.)

Since this passage presumes the existence of living Lamanites in modern times, this passage tells us that either: (1) the DNA data is wrong and modern Native Americans actually are Lamanites, or (2) modern Native Americans are "Lamanites" in a mythical sense, but not as a matter of having any historical connection to an ancient Lamanite race.

[Tacenda]

delete

Edited August 17, 2012 by Tacenda

[Bill Hamblin]

Since this passage presumes the existence of living Lamanites in modern times, this passage tells us that either: (1) the DNA data is wrong and modern Native Americans actually are Lamanites, or (2) modern Native Americans are "Lamanites" in a mythical sense, but not as a matter of having any historical connection to an ancient Lamanite race.

The topic is the implications of a fictional BOM. Please don't turn this into a discussion of historicity. Start a new thread.

[Kevin Christensen]

One thing "all-or-nothing" thinking is very good at is creating a lot of tension. Fundamentalism versus Rationalism is one way of labeling the tension, but it's another over-simplifying polarity that generates tension where a more inclusive and detailed model of different postions can reduce and reconcile many tensions, and illumnate a range of logical options. I often cite the Perry Scheme, with its nine positions, as an option for classifications that helps make better sense of the tensions, and that explains why some people generate so much tension.

Personally, I accept and endorse the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but I'm tolerant of the idea of the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction. If that happens to be the "portion of my words" (Alma 32) that a person chooses to work with, fine for them. What matters most at that point, is how a person nurtures that portion of the word. If a person subsequently dismisses all apologetic material as a matter of principle, not much growth or change is possible on that particular question, regardless of what else happens. But if good service results, then perhaps even that will change in the face of new knowledge.

It is true, as Ben and Don and Bill, have pointed out, that viewing the Book of Mormon as fictional creates tensions of its own. In "Paradigms Crossed" in RBBM and in "What is Real?" in Sunstone, I've commented that the what a person sees as real is far more binding than what a person sees as illustrative, instructive, inspiring, or wise. The word "religion" is related to the word "ligament" and is it the ligaments that hold things together. If "the center cannot hold,:" as T.S. Elliot observes, "things fly apart," as the denomination formerly known as the RLDS have demonstrated in their social laboratory. But it happens that if I see some fiction like King Lear or various myths (following Campbell, for instance) as both inspired and inspiring, then I've actually stopped seeing them as completely fictional but as pointing to something real that is therefore binding.

The trick involves a re-ordering of logical dependencies, using a different hierarchy for ordering the information at hand, one that behaves like a cable or a net, where no single strand is supposed to hold all the weight, rather than building faith like a house of cards. Or, as Thomas Kuhn describes it, "picking up the data by the other end of the stick." I wrote my "Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience" based on comparative religious approaches of why people believe. So things like awe and wonder at the cosmos and nature, numinous experience, mystic experience, a sense of moral obligation, of personal dialogue with Diety (following Buber's I and Thou notion), interelate and interact with reorientation and reconcilliation relative to guilt, sin, personal estrangement, the problems of evil, various tensions between the state of science and scholarship at any given time and one's reading of the key stories in one's faith. And beyond that, mythic patterns and rituals.

So the tension between the stories of Joseph Smith and the Witness, and things like the 37 or so passages with descriptions of the Sidon or life in Jerusalem and in the Desert in 600 BCE, and what ever information an investigator has to compare it with doesn't necessarily have to hold all of the weight. Historical questions, or faith versus science questions don't have to hold all the weight of a person's faith. The tension does not go away, but it can be redistributed, at least in theory, if not forever, at least for a time. This is not all or nothing thinking, but rather, a person can anchor their faith to those portions of the net that they feel are most secure. Such things can be but one part of a whole range of questions or reorientation and reconcilliation on a range of questions and experiences, rather than a keystone upon with everything depends.

The opposite is true as well. A person can also redistribute tensions so that a great deal of tension arises on a particular point. For example, some might redistribute weights so as to pit Prop 8 against the Book of Mormon. The Archimedes' principles of leverage permit any person to move their religious world, given a favorite issue and a place to apply leverage against it. That does not mean that their approach necessarily would cause the same trouble for anyone else, as our recent discussions with Kerry Shirts demonstrate.

The thing is, while I am open to the notion of a fictional Book of Mormon as possible faithful view, in practice, I haven't been impressed by the arguments and readings of those who have espoused it. The most elaborate attempt I have read was Mark Thomas' Digging in Cumorah, but to me it generally fell short. For instance, his chapter on "Dying Heretic" blended Nehor, Korihor, and Sherem into a type scene, that he concluded was rather boring. And that was because he over-generalized similarities, overlooking the kinds of differences that John Welch, for instance, saw in reading them as real. And since Robert Alter pointed out, that the variations between otherwise repetitious type scenes are clues to the meaning, then Thomas actually missed out by too narrowly defining the type scene. Looking at "liminal encounter" say, rather than just dying heretics, brings in Laman and Lemuel rejecting their experience with the angels, or Zeezrom converting just by words, or Alma2 converting because of the angel, or Lamoni and the Queen and Abish being included. I see meaningful variations, telling human responses, rather than dull stereotypes.

It's as Ian Barbour points out, belief,, faith, makes a difference not only in what a person does, but what they notice and value. Since I've gotten serious about exploring the Book of Mormon's claims, I have found that I consistently learn more from those who believe it as historical than I do from those who do not. That is not an endorsement of the Institute Manuals over and above everything in New Approaches or The New Mormon Challenge, but of our best scholars compared to even the best of the critics.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited August 17, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[mfbukowski]

I find it remarkable that marginal Mormons refuse to answer the very straightforward and simple questions I ask. Instead, when I discuss this issue with them, they alway obfuscate and equivocate. I have never had a straightforward answer to these questions from any marginal-Mormon. So I'll try one more time for clarity.

Can a fictional BOM demonstrate that Jesus if the Christ, the Son of the Living God?

Note I am not asking if a fictional BOM can help you be nice (the marginal Mormon equivocation for Christ-like).

Seth, will you answer this question?

No book can demonstrate that, fictional or otherwise. The Book of Mormon seen as an historical document cannot demonstrate that.

Only the Spirit can demonstrate that.

Edited August 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

I find it remarkable that marginal Mormons refuse to answer the very straightforward and simple questions I ask. Instead, when I discuss this issue with them, they alway obfuscate and equivocate. I have never had a straightforward answer to these questions from any marginal-Mormon. So I'll try one more time for clarity.

Can a fictional BOM demonstrate that Jesus if the Christ, the Son of the Living God?

Note I am not asking if a fictional BOM can help you be nice (the marginal Mormon equivocation for Christ-like).

Seth, will you answer this question?

I'm not by any means a "marginal" Mormon, but I am on the BOM-is-fiction side, so I'll answer this as I see it.

The answer is yes. If, by reading the Book of Mormon, you obtain faith in Jesus and repent of your sins, you will receive the Holy Spirit, which will transform your soul. What better demonstration is there than that? In fact, that's really the only demonstration of the Godhood of Jesus that ever could be possible. Also, the Book of Mormon is a demonstration that there is a Jesus alive in the world today, still providing scripture for his people.

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm not by any means a "marginal" Mormon, but I am on the BOM-is-fiction side, so I'll answer this as I see it.

The answer is yes. If, by reading the Book of Mormon, you obtain faith in Jesus and repent of your sins, you will receive the Holy Spirit, which will transform your soul. What better demonstration is there than that? In fact, that's really the only demonstration of the Godhood of Jesus that ever could be possible. Also, the Book of Mormon is a demonstration that there is a Jesus alive in the world today, still providing scripture for his people.

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

[Bill Hamblin]

No book can demonstrate that, fictional or otherwise. The Book of Mormon seen as an historical document cannot demonstrate that.

Only the Spirit can demonstrate that.

That's true. But it again avoids the question. It's a logical question. Does a fictional book demonstrate the existence of something mentioned in that book?

[sethpayne]

You can't. It is not possible. As the Prophet Joseph Smith said:

Hi Will,

I'm thankful that God is the ultimate Judge and will determine if I have "forsaken" him by having doubts. I hope that Heavenly Father will be merciful but who knows, I may end up the terrestrial kingdom running a message board for the rest of eternity.

In the mean time, I'll do the best I know to do and follow spiritual promptings as best I can.

Seth

[sethpayne]

I find it remarkable that marginal Mormons refuse to answer the very straightforward and simple questions I ask. Instead, when I discuss this issue with them, they alway obfuscate and equivocate. I have never had a straightforward answer to these questions from any marginal-Mormon. So I'll try one more time for clarity.

Can a fictional BOM demonstrate that Jesus if the Christ, the Son of the Living God?

Note I am not asking if a fictional BOM can help you be nice (the marginal Mormon equivocation for Christ-like).

Seth, will you answer this question?

Hi Bill,

Sure. I will answer as best I can.

Can a fictional BOM demonstrate that Jesus if the Christ, the Son of the Living God

* I don't know if Jesus Christ is the son of the Living God

Therefore, I don't know if the BOM, fictional or otherwise, can demonstrate that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God.

Bottom line: I don't know.

What I do know is that I should seek to live a Christ-like life and as such, I will continue to try. Maybe one day I will have your level of certainty but as of now, I just don't know.

Seth

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi Bill,

Sure. I will answer as best I can.

Can a fictional BOM demonstrate that Jesus if the Christ, the Son of the Living God

* I don't know if Jesus Christ is the son of the Living God

Therefore, I don't know if the BOM, fictional or otherwise, can demonstrate that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God.

Bottom line: I don't know.

What I do know is that I should seek to live a Christ-like life and as such, I will continue to try. Maybe one day I will have your level of certainty but as of now, I just don't know.

Seth

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?

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi Bill,

Sure. I will answer as best I can.

Can a fictional BOM demonstrate that Jesus if the Christ, the Son of the Living God

* I don't know if Jesus Christ is the son of the Living God

Therefore, I don't know if the BOM, fictional or otherwise, can demonstrate that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God.

Bottom line: I don't know.

What I do know is that I should seek to live a Christ-like life and as such, I will continue to try. Maybe one day I will have your level of certainty but as of now, I just don't know.

Seth

Another way to phrase the question: If the BOM is historical, does it demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ?

[sethpayne]

Another way to phrase the question: If the BOM is historical, does it demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ?

Without question.

If the Book of Mormon came about exactly as JS said it did and there were real Gold Plates and real Lamanites and Nephites then yes, proof of this metaphysical claim would also prove the metaphysical claim that Jesus is the Christ.

Edited August 17, 2012 by sethpayne

[sethpayne]

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?

What do you mean by exists?

You are using words that have fuzzy meanings and so it is difficult to answer your question.

If you are asking does Lord of the Rings demonstrate that Gollum existed in 4-dimensional space-time, then no.

But Gollum (along with the moral lessons his character teaches us) most certainly exists in the minds of LoTR fans. In that sense, Gollum does exist.

Seth

[Bill Hamblin]

What do you mean by exists?

You are using words that have fuzzy meanings and so it is difficult to answer your question.

If you are asking does Lord of the Rings demonstrate that Gollum existed in 4-dimensional space-time, then no.

But Gollum (along with the moral lessons his character teaches us) most certainly exists in the minds of LoTR fans. In that sense, Gollum does exist.

Seth

More obfuscation. I can never get a marginal Mormon to answer the question. It's unbelievable.

It's a simple question and the answer is obvious. I suspect you actually agree with me. But you won't answer the question.

[sethpayne]

More obfuscation. I can never get a marginal Mormon to answer the question. It's unbelievable.

It's a simple question and the answer is obvious. I suspect you actually agree with me. But you won't answer the question.

1) Did you miss post 114?

2) Asking for you to clarify your use of terms is obsfucating?

Does your love for you wife, exist Bill? What about your love for your Children? These are ethereal concepts that do exist outside 4 dimensional space-time. How you define exist is vitally important to exploring the questions you pose.

[mfbukowski]

I'm thankful that God is the ultimate Judge and will determine if I have "forsaken" him by having doubts. I hope that Heavenly Father will be merciful but who knows, I may end up the terrestrial kingdom running a message board for the rest of eternity.

[mfbukowski]

Without question.

If the Book of Mormon came about exactly as JS said it did and there were real Gold Plates and real Lamanites and Nephites then yes, proof of this metaphysical claim would also prove the metaphysical claim that Jesus is the Christ.

Man, it sure wouldn't prove it to me.

There is no way that the account in the bible proves to me that Jesus even existed much less was the Son of God or the Sacrifice for my sins.

Who would believe such a thing based on legends written thousands of years ago by ....who knows ?

For me, there is no credibility whatsoever in these old stories. I mean I think all religious scripture from all traditions has pragmatic value in making us "nice" as Bill would say- but to think that historical evidence can prove religious, spiritual evidence?

Not possible! These are two different language games- two different contexts

[Bill Hamblin]

Man, it sure wouldn't prove it to me.

There is no way that the account in the bible proves to me that Jesus even existed much less was the Son of God or the Sacrifice for my sins.

Who would believe such a thing based on legends written thousands of years ago by ....who knows ?

For me, there is no credibility whatsoever in these old stories. I mean I think all religious scripture from all traditions has pragmatic value in making us "nice" as Bill would say- but to think that historical evidence can prove religious, spiritual evidence?

Not possible! These are two different language games- two different contexts

If the BOM is historical then the resurrected Jesus appeared to the Nephites. What more do you want?

[Bill Hamblin]

1) Did you miss post 114?

2) Asking for you to clarify your use of terms is obsfucating?

Does your love for you wife, exist Bill? What about your love for your Children? These are ethereal concepts that do exist outside 4 dimensional space-time. How you define exist is vitally important to exploring the questions you pose.

You answered every question but the main one:

Does a fictional BOM demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God?

[mfbukowski]

That's true. But it again avoids the question. It's a logical question. Does a fictional book demonstrate the existence of something mentioned in that book?

Do the novels of C.S. Lewis demonstrate anything about God?

How about Orson Scott Card?

The church teaches that the elements have intelligence, and are able to respond obediently to those who understand that, as is chronicled in the miracles Jesus performed, transforming water into wine, etc.

Millions of ordinary folk were "turned on" to this idea by the blatantly fictional work Star Wars, and arguably this was one factor in the development of the whole "New Age Spirituality" movement. This is evidence for that:

[mfbukowski]

If the BOM is historical then the resurrected Jesus appeared to the Nephites. What more do you want?

Actually if the BOM is historical, all that proves is that the Nephites had a story that coheres with New Testament accounts. Where that story came from is another question- and whether or not the person who allegedly appeared to them was MY personal savior and redeemer is completely another question.

You know fully well with all your experience as an apologist that even if tomorrow morning someone finds a stele which says "welcome to Zarahemla" in whatever is the proper script, there are still millions of people who would not join the church.

The arguments at the trailer park would continue unabated, in my opinion.

[Bill Hamblin]

Actually if the BOM is historical, all that proves is that the Nephites had a story that coheres with New Testament accounts. Where that story came from is another question- and whether or not the person who allegedly appeared to them was MY personal savior and redeemer is completely another question.

You know fully well with all your experience as an apologist that even if tomorrow morning someone finds a stele which says "welcome to Zarahemla" in whatever is the proper script, there are still millions of people who would not join the church.

The arguments at the trailer park would continue unabated, in my opinion.

Well, if a bunch of American Indians had a strange communal vision it certainly wouldn't have been of Jesus.

Historicity of the BOM includes historicity of the authentic Son of God visiting in the New World. At least in the sense that I'm using it.

And the fact that people believe or disbelieve something often has little to do with who can or can't be demonstrated.

[William Schryver]

The book didn't speak to me- God did.

Same with me.