A Fictional Book Of Mormon?

[Bart Burk]

And yet there were all those English, Dutch, Russian, Swedes, French and Spanish kings and queens over their American territories/colonies....

But we tossed them as the Book of Mormon said would happen. The only place with continual freedom since that time has been the U.S. and perhaps Canada.

[wayfarer]

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

I answer, absolutely "Yes", if the spirit co-testifies that Jesus the Christ. For me it does, and I have no problem with the Book of Mormon being both true to its mission of testifying of Christ and divinely inspired fiction. And to break your record of so-called marginal mormons not answering your question, I am a Middle-Way Mormon, what you would consider a "marginal mormon", although my views of the Middle Way hardly mean "marginal" mormonism.

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

Nothing. And that should explicitly not be a criterion for a faith-based witness. Jesus said, "Blessed are they who have not seen, yet have believed". If we have a physical witness that cannot be impugned, what then does the role of "faith" have in this equation? If an historical event and the spirit does not co-witness, then there is no effectual testimony. If the spirit witnesses to the testimony of the book of mormon, then it is true as a witness, regardless of its origin.

In one of the replies to your blog, Alan Horne says that he has never met someone that believes the Book of Mormon to be Inspired Fiction, and you claim to know many such people. Then someone else replied who both says that he has a testimony and believes that the book of mormon is "inspired fiction". I think this was two days ago, and nothing has been written since. I'm curious what your answer to his post would be.

[Calm]

But we tossed them as the Book of Mormon said would happen. The only place with continual freedom since that time has been the U.S. and perhaps Canada.

Canada is still a Monarchy. Probably just as "free" though as the US is. Edited August 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Brant Gardner]

The only place with continual freedom since that time has been the U.S. and perhaps Canada.

I'm curious to know why freedom is defined as an absence of a monarch (and why we only get a "perhaps" for Canada). Surely there are lots of governments that have restricted freedom and not been monarchical.

On the other hand, the Nephites had a monarchy for almost half of their existence. From the record as Mormon gave it to us, it would actually appear that they had more internal and external problems after changing to judges than ever they did before--leading to their total collapse at Cumorah.

[Bill Hamblin]

The region of the current USA was ruled at various times by a number of Monarchs: English, French, Dutch, Spanish and Russian.

[ANACO]

The region of the current USA was ruled at various times by a number of Monarchs: English, French, Dutch, Spanish and Russian.

2 Nephi 10:11 states there shall be no Kings upon the land.

Evidence that Moroni knew of what he wrote in Mormon 8:35

[Kevin Christensen]

Brant Gardner (Second Witness Vol 2, p 197-189) pointed out that the 2 Nephi 10:11 makes more sense in historical context without the comma. The punctuation, of course, is not part of the translation, but due to the subsequent editing by various people.

"There shall be no kings upon the land who shall raise up unto the Gentiles." This is not the same thing as "no kings anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, ever, period."

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[ANACO]

Brant Gardner (Second Witness Vol 2, p 197-189) pointed out that the 2 Nephi 10:11 makes more sense in historical context without the comma. The punctuation, of course, is not part of the translation, but due to the subsequent editing by various people.

"There shall be no kings upon the land who shall raise up unto the Gentiles." This is not the same thing as "no kings anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, ever, period."

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Has there been kings upon the land?

[cursor]

Just to name a few references:

Jacob 1:9-10

9 Now Nephi began to be old, and he saw that he must soon adie; wherefore, he banointed a man to be a king and a ruler over his people now, according to the reigns of the kings.

10 The people having loved Nephi exceedingly, he having been a great protector for them, having wielded the asword of Laban in their defence, and having labored in all his days for their welfare—

11 Wherefore, the people were desirous to retain in remembrance his name. And whoso should reign in his stead were called by the people, second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth, according to the reigns of the kings; and thus they were called by the people, let them be of whatever name they would.

Omni 12

12 Behold, I am Amaleki, the son of Abinadom. Behold, I will speak unto you somewhat concerning Mosiah, who was made king over the land of Zarahemla ...

Mosiah 7:9

9 And he said unto them: Behold, I am aLimhi, the son of Noah, who was the son of Zeniff, who came up out of the bland of Zarahemla to inherit this land, which was the land of their fathers, who was made a cking by the dvoice of the people.

Omni 23-24

23 Behold, I, Amaleki, was born in the days of Mosiah; and I have lived to see his death; and aBenjamin, bhis son, reigneth in his stead.

24 And behold, I have seen, in the days of king Benjamin, a serious war and much bloodshed between the Nephites and the Lamanites. But behold, the Nephites did obtain much advantage over them; yea, insomuch that king Benjamin did drive them out of the land of Zarahemla.

Mosiah 2:30

30 For even at this time, my whole frame doth tremble exceedingly while attempting to speak unto you; but the Lord God doth support me, and hath suffered me that I should speak unto you, and hath commanded me that I should declare unto you this day, that my son Mosiah is a aking and a ruler over you.

3 Nephi 7:9-10

9 Now this secret combination, which had brought so great iniquity upon the people, did gather themselves together, and did place at their head a man whom they did call Jacob;

10 And they did call him their king; therefore he became a king over this wicked band; and he was one of the chiefest who had given his voice against the prophets who testified of Jesus.

Ether 6:22-27

22 And it came to pass that the people desired of them that they should anoint one of their sons to be a king over them.

23 And now behold, this was grievous unto them. And the brother of Jared said unto them: Surely this thing leadeth into captivity.

24 But Jared said unto his brother: Suffer them that they may have a king. And therefore he said unto them: Choose ye out from among our sons a king, even whom ye will.

25 And it came to pass that they chose even the firstborn of the brother of Jared; and his name was Pagag. And it came to pass that he refused and would not be their aking. And the people would that his father should constrain him, but his father would not; and he commanded them that they should constrain no man to be their king.

26 And it came to pass that they chose all the brothers of Pagag, and they would not.

27 And it came to pass that neither would the asons of Jared, even all save it were one; and Orihah was anointed to be king over the people.

Edited August 18, 2012 by cursor

[ANACO]

Just to name a few references:

Jacob 1:9-10

9 Now Nephi began to be old, and he saw that he must soon adie; wherefore, he banointed a man to be a king and a ruler over his people now, according to the reigns of the kings.

10 The people having loved Nephi exceedingly, he having been a great protector for them, having wielded the asword of Laban in their defence, and having labored in all his days for their welfare—

11 Wherefore, the people were desirous to retain in remembrance his name. And whoso should reign in his stead were called by the people, second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth, according to the reigns of the kings; and thus they were called by the people, let them be of whatever name they would.

Omni 12

12 Behold, I am Amaleki, the son of Abinadom. Behold, I will speak unto you somewhat concerning Mosiah, who was made king over the land of Zarahemla ...

Omni 23-24

23 Behold, I, Amaleki, was born in the days of Mosiah; and I have lived to see his death; and aBenjamin, bhis son, reigneth in his stead.

24 And behold, I have seen, in the days of king Benjamin, a serious war and much bloodshed between the Nephites and the Lamanites. But behold, the Nephites did obtain much advantage over them; yea, insomuch that king Benjamin did drive them out of the land of Zarahemla.

Mosiah 2:30

30 For even at this time, my whole frame doth tremble exceedingly while attempting to speak unto you; but the Lord God doth support me, and hath suffered me that I should speak unto you, and hath commanded me that I should declare unto you this day, that my son Mosiah is a aking and a ruler over you.

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?

[cursor]

Yes, that is a different question from what you previously asked.

[Bill Hamblin]

I answer, absolutely "Yes", if the spirit co-testifies that Jesus the Christ. For me it does, and I have no problem with the Book of Mormon being both true to its mission of testifying of Christ and divinely inspired fiction. And to break your record of so-called marginal mormons not answering your question, I am a Middle-Way Mormon, what you would consider a "marginal mormon", although my views of the Middle Way hardly mean "marginal" mormonism.

There is a serious qualification. Why, then, do we need the Book of Mormon? Why not just have the Spirit testify? And why would the Spirit testify about something that isn't true? (e.g. that Christ visited America)?

[rodheadlee]

2 Nephi 10: 10-14 says the Gentiles will not have kings upon the land. It does not say there will be no government.

Mexico doesn't have a king, neither does Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua or Costa Rica.

Edited August 18, 2012 by rodheadlee

[Bart Burk]

Mexico doesn't have a king, neither does Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua or Costa Rica.

But they have not always been lands of freedom. Kings and dictators are pretty much the same thing. It is hard to argue the BOM wasn't talking about the United States.

[wayfarer]

There is a serious qualification. Why, then, do we need the Book of Mormon? Why not just have the Spirit testify? And why would the Spirit testify about something that isn't true? (e.g. that Christ visited America)?

The process of testifying, of revelation, often does not start with a blank slate. Joseph Smith in explaining revelation to Oliver said that something had to be studied out in one's own mind, then followed up with spiritual confirmation. Spirit speaks to the emotions, often in something other than words: Mind and Heart are the divine standard for revelation, as is body and spirit, etc.

There are many reasons for having the book of mormon and quickly legitimizing it as scripture. Canon, as you well know at the time was closed. Creeds ran the day. By having a material new book of scripture, there was immediatly a body of clear and unambiguous doctrine -- the first principles and ordinances of the gospel, to found the restored church. I don't think it would have been anything other than another christian/protestant faith without it. Opening canon was a material necessity to undo the damage of the apostacy.

You ask why would God reveal something that "isn't true". Again, can we presume to know the mind of god? There are myriad possibilities. First, that the account is actually true in some ways, and I'm sure all of us are willing to have faith that it is, somehow, some way, and in some dimension. Even more-so, because t be 'more true', its divine content transcends the physical words -- it is sanctioned by god as a single narrative testimony of Christ. Being willing to accept that the process of getting the message across may truly have been through the mind and heart of this remarkable prophet joseph smith.

Let us take, for a brief metaphor, the temple account. Certain aspects clearly came from masonry, and some aspects of that have been set aside over time. Clearly as well, there are aspects of the temple endowment that are sublimely not from masonry, but from a higher source -- divine revelation. You might as well ask why god would have allowed the masonic portions to be there, if God were to take them out later. Mankind learns through these symbols, and at some point, the symbols can be left aside. Prophets reveal from their mind and heart, and within that tableau, other things frequently get mixed in.

returning to the book of mormon, BH Roberts found that Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" narrative somehow find its way essentially into the story of of the book of mormon. I do not agree that the View of the Hebrews was intentionally plagiarized. However, as the revealed narrative of the book of mormon came through Joseph Smith, his schema of knowledge included this supposition that hebrews ended up in america. That is apparent from the contents of libraries in the area. Without knowing how this all happened, I believe it is one possibility that as the spiritual inspiration of this marvellous book came about, the pieces of narrative were drawn from Joseph's fertile knowledge base.

What is the truth of witnessing of Jesus Christ? If the native americans had such a visitor, which I believe that they probably did -- I have faith that they did as noted in the book. But do the native americans have to be israelites to have had this experience? Who knows? The Book of Mormon, by it's own admission, is not a historical account (those were on the 'other plates'). Many many possibiilities exist. We don't have such answers; we don't need such answers. Faith is an acceptance, without knowledge, that the book is a witness of Christ, and as we testify, scripture. Scripture, as you as a scholar I'm sure know, is often derived from mythological accounts to testify divine principles.

I know you're busy, but I still don't see a respose to that poster's query on your blog.

Edited August 18, 2012 by wayfarer

[ANACO]

If the native americans had such a visitor, which I believe that they probably did -- I have faith that they did as noted in the book. But do the native americans have to be israelites to have had this experience? Who knows?

Apparenty Mormon was an Israelite:

(3 Nephi5:20)

I am Mormon, and a

pure

descendant

of Lehi.

If Lehi was an Israelite, so was Mormon.

And this some 400 years after the visit of Christ!

[wayfarer]

Apparenty Mormon was an Israelite:

3 Nephi5:20)

I am Mormon, and a

pure

descendant

of Lehi.

If Lehi was an Israelite, so was Mormon.

And this some 400 years after the visit of Christ!

Within any inspired mythological account, there are details as part of the narrative. The narrative makes the testimony readable, memorable. Joseph well might have been drawing from View of the Hebrews for the narrative tableau, within which the Testimony of Christ is revealed to us. The narrative tableau does not have to be literally true for the myth to carry its inspired message. And please don't imply that I'm disparaging an account because I use the term "Myth". It is meant for its precise meaning.

I gain tremendous benefit from the Garden of Eden story. At one point, for approximately 150 years of church history, there were aspects of that story that were recognized as being simply figurative. For the past 22 years, that teaching has mysteriously disappeared. Yet when I liken the Garden of Eden story to myself, there are tremendous lessons learned thereby. The historical content is not nearly as important as the spiritual message. I know many of you are biblical literalists, so you may not accept what I'm trying to say here. But the Garden of Eden story is so important, spiritually, that this mythological account occurs three times in LDS scripture in addition to the sacred places.

[webbles]

But they have not always been lands of freedom. Kings and dictators are pretty much the same thing. It is hard to argue the BOM wasn't talking about the United States.

Neither has the United States. No where in the prophecy does it have a date specified at which the land must be free. If Mexico had a king up until 2012 and then overthrew it, how does that prevent it from being the "land" in the prophecy?

[Bill Hamblin]

The process of testifying, of revelation, often does not start with a blank slate. Joseph Smith in explaining revelation to Oliver said that something had to be studied out in one's own mind, then followed up with spiritual confirmation. Spirit speaks to the emotions, often in something other than words: Mind and Heart are the divine standard for revelation, as is body and spirit, etc.

There are many reasons for having the book of mormon and quickly legitimizing it as scripture. Canon, as you well know at the time was closed. Creeds ran the day. By having a material new book of scripture, there was immediatly a body of clear and unambiguous doctrine -- the first principles and ordinances of the gospel, to found the restored church. I don't think it would have been anything other than another christian/protestant faith without it. Opening canon was a material necessity to undo the damage of the apostacy.

You ask why would God reveal something that "isn't true". Again, can we presume to know the mind of god? There are myriad possibilities. First, that the account is actually true in some ways, and I'm sure all of us are willing to have faith that it is, somehow, some way, and in some dimension. Even more-so, because t be 'more true', its divine content transcends the physical words -- it is sanctioned by god as a single narrative testimony of Christ. Being willing to accept that the process of getting the message across may truly have been through the mind and heart of this remarkable prophet joseph smith.

Let us take, for a brief metaphor, the temple account. Certain aspects clearly came from masonry, and some aspects of that have been set aside over time. Clearly as well, there are aspects of the temple endowment that are sublimely not from masonry, but from a higher source -- divine revelation. You might as well ask why god would have allowed the masonic portions to be there, if God were to take them out later. Mankind learns through these symbols, and at some point, the symbols can be left aside. Prophets reveal from their mind and heart, and within that tableau, other things frequently get mixed in.

returning to the book of mormon, BH Roberts found that Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" narrative somehow find its way essentially into the story of of the book of mormon. I do not agree that the View of the Hebrews was intentionally plagiarized. However, as the revealed narrative of the book of mormon came through Joseph Smith, his schema of knowledge included this supposition that hebrews ended up in america. That is apparent from the contents of libraries in the area. Without knowing how this all happened, I believe it is one possibility that as the spiritual inspiration of this marvellous book came about, the pieces of narrative were drawn from Joseph's fertile knowledge base.

What is the truth of witnessing of Jesus Christ? If the native americans had such a visitor, which I believe that they probably did -- I have faith that they did as noted in the book. But do the native americans have to be israelites to have had this experience? Who knows? The Book of Mormon, by it's own admission, is not a historical account (those were on the 'other plates'). Many many possibiilities exist. We don't have such answers; we don't need such answers. Faith is an acceptance, without knowledge, that the book is a witness of Christ, and as we testify, scripture. Scripture, as you as a scholar I'm sure know, is often derived from mythological accounts to testify divine principles.

I know you're busy, but I still don't see a respose to that poster's query on your blog.

The reality is that God could have revealed a wide variety of true things about Christ to JS. You would have us believe God chose instead to reveal false things to somehow convince people that Jesus is the Christ. Really? That simply makes no sense whatsoever.

[why me]

But they have not always been lands of freedom. Kings and dictators are pretty much the same thing. It is hard to argue the BOM wasn't talking about the United States.

Difficult to say what country the book is talking about. However, if written in 1820 it was a pretty bold statement to make. America was only 30 or 40 years old. And this needs to be considered when trying to claim that it is a nineteenth century production. And so far, the book of mormon has been correct about this statement. There has not been a king or queen or dictator.

[ANACO]

Difficult to say what country the book is talking about. However, if written in 1820 it was a pretty bold statement to make. America was only 30 or 40 years old. And this needs to be considered when trying to claim that it is a nineteenth century production. And so far, the book of mormon has been correct about this statement. There has not been a king or queen or dictator.

Difficult to say what country the book is talking about?

I don't know. What do you think. There's a finite amount of countries in the Americas. Would 1 Nephi 22:7 be of any help?

I believe no kings upon the land could refer to the entire Americas.

And I believe you can also have a mighty nation among the nations of the Americas.

[wayfarer]

The reality is that God could have revealed a wide variety of true things about Christ to JS. You would have us believe God chose instead to reveal false things to somehow convince people that Jesus is the Christ. Really? That simply makes no sense whatsoever.

Indeed God revealed a lot of things about Christ during the life of Joseph Smith, and many of them were line upon line, precept upon precept. His understanding of the nature of god and godhead evolved during his lifetime.

It cannot make sense if you assume that every word that the prophet generates is the word of god, and that every word of scripture is literally the dictated word of god. If that's your viewpoint, then you are correct, it makes no sense.

But god reveals the concept to the mind and heart, and the words used come through the prophet's understanding. It may be better to think of the narrative tableau as being 'mythical', than to use the pejorative 'false', but you have the freedom to choose the words that suit. As we observe the modification of some doctrines over time as we gain further light and knowledge, I think it's pretty clear that "mind and heart" necessarily involve current "human understanding" as it attempts to grasp the divine.

I have to ask, if you have a viewpoint that God does not reveal things through the prophets within the lens of their personal understanding, then how do you explain the inclusion of masonic elements in the Temple endowment that are no longer part today? Apparently something "False" got in there at some point.

[mfbukowski]

Another aspect of this which I think no one has mentioned is the pure doctrine and philosophy found in the Book of Mormon which makes it incredibly valuable regardless of its source.

One looks at theological writings and the attempt to resolve one doctrine with another and can find value in these writings- indeed the whole body of Neoplatonism which was incorporated into early Christianity represents a philosophical point of view subliminally accepted even today by Christians everywhere- but what was it's source? Pagan Greek philosophy!

Is philosophy "fiction"? I doubt that it qualifies for that title but yet it is clearly some human being's ideas based on nothing more than what was in his head and then written on paper. It doesn't aspire to even be called "inspired" and yet such views have historically transformed religion and the beliefs held by billions through the ages.

What "truth" is, say, John Stuart Mill's Utilitarian ethics based on? Is it based on some historical event? Of course not! What about Kant's ethics and the Categorical Imperative? Is that based on a historical event? Of course not, yet of course these ideas have influenced millions.

Was Luther's theology based on anything other than what was in his mind- his own ideas? No- and what of Wesley, Calvin and the other great reformers?

I believe that if, under other circumstances, if Joseph Smith received an education and just sat in his chair and wrote the doctrinal contents of the BOM as a theological treatise thereby reconstructing Christianity to what he maintained was its "original" biblical beliefs, he might have been seen as perhaps the greatest reformer of them all, because what he was inspired to write indeed is great simply as a revolutionary way of seeing Christianity.

I think the ideas themselves stand as their own as revolutionary theology, and frankly if I had found someone who presented them in the context I suggested above, I would have joined that church in a heartbeat for purely intellectual and philosophical reasons. In fact, I was already largely "converted" to the ideas in the BOM, many of which I had found in secular sources before I even knew what a Mormon was.

In fact at first the gold plates and angels and what I saw as the historical anomalies were an obstacle at first until I received my testimony. I had found a book about Mormonism describing the idea of eternal progression- the idea that we can become like God- and that was exactly in harmony with what I had seen in similar terms philosophically- that God is man, and man is god, and that trend can be seen in Continental philosophy starting with Hegel and Nietsche.

The first question I asked a Mormon was to tell me about eternal progression- instead I was offered a Book of Mormon with an invitation to talk to the missionaries.

I was already interested based purely on the philosophy- and had no more care about its source than I did about the biography of John Stuart Mill or where he got his ideas.

Mohammad had no plates, Buddha had no plates, Baha'u'llah had no plates, the Avesta made no claim to being historical- why should I care if there were plates or not or if angels delivered them or not?

Here was TRUTH being proclaimed- and revolutionary doctrine finally resolving the central problem of Christianity- how a loving Father could be a Transcendent Platonic Essence!

The answer? He could not. He is an immanent human raised to an infinite degree of perfection and yet still immanent and indeed our Father- and incredibly we could become like Him. It all fit perfectly!

Did I care where that philosophy came from? Of course not! Just as it stood, it resolved all of Christianity simply as a philosophical position.

But then God decided to change my mind for me and tell me that not only was this true philosophy, but indeed it was His Word!

I surrendered! How could I NOT?

Edited August 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

But god reveals the concept to the mind and heart, and the words used come through the prophet's understanding. It may be better to think of the narrative tableau as being 'mythical', than to use the pejorative 'false', but you have the freedom to choose the words that suit. As we observe the modification of some doctrines over time as we gain further light and knowledge, I think it's pretty clear that "mind and heart" necessarily involve current "human understanding" as it attempts to grasp the divine.

Every word we utter is a metaphor- words are not things, but they are symbols and signs we associate with things and situations and ideas.

On this view every idea - including those of science- are metaphors and linguistic structures. If you want to use the word "myth" unfortunately it does have pejorative connotations that are especially offensive in a religious context and cause one to be misunderstood.

I think the idea of a "linguistic model" maybe communicates better and also can be seen to apply equally to science- as we know the paradigm shifts of science are shifts in linguistic models of how we see reality, and I think that terminology used also in religion is preferable. It also illustrates I think the similarity between science and religion by calling them both "linguistic models" even though science indeed is an objectively verifiable linguistic model- meaning that we all can verify scientific models, whereas the model we use in religion is only "verifiable" by lending subjective meaning to a person's life.

Anyway, that's the way I "model" the difference, for what it's worth

[wayfarer]

@mfbukowski: stellar posts...very insightful and thought provoking! things to ponder...

Edited August 19, 2012 by wayfarer