A Fictional Book Of Mormon?

[Calm]

But they have not always been lands of freedom.

Are you saying the US has always been a land of freedom?

Would that include all the blacks that were in slavery here? Or the Native Americans that were killed or herded on to reservations? The Europeans that were indentured servants?

Edited August 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

Everything you say may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that God did not have to reveal a bunch of fictional stories to Joseph Smith in order to create new revelation to bring us to Christ. (By true I am speaking of ontological reality, not metaphysical truth.) That is, it is perfectly possible for God to reveal metaphysical truth about Christ through the revelation of ontological truth about Christ. Therefore, why would God possibly want to try to reveal a metaphysical truth about Christ (e.g. he is the eternal Son of God) by basing it to an ontological falsehood about Christ (e.g. he visited Nephites in the New World)?

[wayfarer]

Everything you say may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that God did not have to reveal a bunch of fictional stories to Joseph Smith in order to create new revelation to bring us to Christ. (By true I am speaking of ontological reality, not metaphysical truth.) That is, it is perfectly possible for God to reveal metaphysical truth about Christ through the revelation of ontological truth about Christ. Therefore, why would God possibly want to try to reveal a metaphysical truth about Christ (e.g. he is the eternal Son of God) by basing it to an ontological falsehood about Christ (e.g. he visited Nephites in the New World)?

As a matter of fact, you have hit the nail on the head. I did not say, anywhere, that the ontological reality of Christ visiting America was false. In fact, that is precisely the core truth of the Book of Mormon.

Note what the book of Mormon says:

And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;

And that he manifesteth himself unto all those who believe in him, by the power of the Holy Ghost; yea, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people

2 Ne 2:26

If Jesus Christ manifests himself until every nation, kindred, tongue and people, then there is an objective, ontological reality as to how he does this. Apostate Christianity was stuck into the concept that God did this once and for all through Jesus Christ in a very small part of the world.

The book of mormon testifies that somehow, through means we do not fully understand, that Jesus -- the Great I AM (YHWH) -- manifest himself to people living in the Americas. I accept this in faith that this is an objective reality. This concept, that the manifestation of YHWH to the Americans, when detached from the fictional narrative, becomes a singularly critical thing for us to know and understand.

But the statement was not restricted just to two parts of the world. Indeed the Great I AM manifests himself to all nations, kindreds, tongues and people. How is this objectively so? Again, 2 Nephi answers:

For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

2 Ne 29:11-12

Where are all these books? from the "other tribes"? From all nations of the earth? Where is the evidence of the Great I AM visiting each one of them? They exist. The book of mormon witnesses to that fact by virtue of its own ontological reality, as well as the pointers to the ontological reality of the great I AM to each nation, kindred, tongue and people.

The witness of the book of mormon, as I have noted before, opens up the world to receiving the objectively real manifestation of the I AM. When we literalize the book, we fail to see the ontological reality embodied in the very name of Jesus Christ: "I AM".

So, I accept that I AM visited the Americas, fully and completely -- in language they could understand, using symbols and tokens they could comprehend. That is the witness of the book of Mormon -- a very powerful one indeed, when we detach from literalism.

[wayfarer]

Duplicate post deleted.

Edited August 19, 2012 by wayfarer

[robuchan]

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?

None of us are in the category of people who know Christ with their own eyes. So we are reliant on the testimony of those that have, confirmed by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Is it a significantly different quality to read a true account of Christ, confirmed by the power of the Holy Ghost, vs reading a fictional yet inspired account of Christ, confirmed by the power of the Holy Ghost?

[robuchan]

Everything you say may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that God did not have to reveal a bunch of fictional stories to Joseph Smith in order to create new revelation to bring us to Christ. (By true I am speaking of ontological reality, not metaphysical truth.) That is, it is perfectly possible for God to reveal metaphysical truth about Christ through the revelation of ontological truth about Christ. Therefore, why would God possibly want to try to reveal a metaphysical truth about Christ (e.g. he is the eternal Son of God) by basing it to an ontological falsehood about Christ (e.g. he visited Nephites in the New World)?

The assumptions you make in your model of God and how he relates to man is that He is very involved. You take the Bible's accounts of man's relation with God literal.

If you were to back off that assumption, and open your mind to more possibilities of how God relates to man, then you might see a fit for the BOM as inspired fiction.

Imagine a God that relates to man maybe more like you relate to ants on an ant hill. You can put your finger down and direct their path, or you could drop a piece of bread down for them to gather on, but you're not speaking direct words to them. I don't mean that example literally, but I mean it as another example of a type of relationship God might have with man. Open up that assumption and you can see a way the BOM can fit as inspired fiction.

[volgadon]

The assumptions you make in your model of God and how he relates to man is that He is very involved. You take the Bible's accounts of man's relation with God literal.

If you were to back off that assumption, and open your mind to more possibilities of how God relates to man, then you might see a fit for the BOM as inspired fiction.

Imagine a God that relates to man maybe more like you relate to ants on an ant hill. You can put your finger down and direct their path, or you could drop a piece of bread down for them to gather on, but you're not speaking direct words to them. I don't mean that example literally, but I mean it as another example of a type of relationship God might have with man. Open up that assumption and you can see a way the BOM can fit as inspired fiction.

That leaves even more unanswered questions, as why would the fiction be inspired if the God it presented went COMPLETELY against the image of the God that inspired it in some way.

[robuchan]

That leaves even more unanswered questions, as why would the fiction be inspired if the God it presented went COMPLETELY against the image of the God that inspired it in some way.

That's a good question, but not impossible to answer. I think you have to answer that question anyway, since the modern church and current method of revelation seems to be nothing like the times of Joseph Smith and the BOM and Old Testament prophets.

[volgadon]

That's a good question, but not impossible to answer. I think you have to answer that question anyway, since the modern church and current method of revelation seems to be nothing like the times of Joseph Smith and the BOM and Old Testament prophets.

No, I don't have to answer that question anyway, as we still teach and believe in a God involved in the fate and lives of his children.

[wayfarer]

The assumptions you make in your model of God and how he relates to man is that He is very involved. You take the Bible's accounts of man's relation with God literal.

If you were to back off that assumption, and open your mind to more possibilities of how God relates to man, then you might see a fit for the BOM as inspired fiction.

Imagine a God that relates to man maybe more like you relate to ants on an ant hill. You can put your finger down and direct their path, or you could drop a piece of bread down for them to gather on, but you're not speaking direct words to them. I don't mean that example literally, but I mean it as another example of a type of relationship God might have with man. Open up that assumption and you can see a way the BOM can fit as inspired fiction.

That leaves even more unanswered questions, as why would the fiction be inspired if the God it presented went COMPLETELY against the image of the God that inspired it in some way.

That's a good question, but not impossible to answer. I think you have to answer that question anyway, since the modern church and current method of revelation seems to be nothing like the times of Joseph Smith and the BOM and Old Testament prophets.

Excellent, excellent responses. when we lose the literalism, a deeper meaning becomes available to us.

[wayfarer]

No, I don't have to answer that question anyway, as we still teach and believe in a God involved in the fate and lives of his children.

and so he does and so he is... if god is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, then what changes? certainly not the mechanism with which he communicates his involvement with his children. could it be that in times past, as god communicated to he mind and heart of his children, that his children allowed their magical worldview to inform their testimony?

[robuchan]

No, I don't have to answer that question anyway, as we still teach and believe in a God involved in the fate and lives of his children.

The closest God has interacted with his prophets in the last 100 years is the 1978 priesthood revelation. If you read the David O McKay biography and hear other inside accounts of this, this revelation doesn't look anything like anything in Joseph Smith's life or the accounts of the BOM and Old Testament. You can believe what you want, but the reality is that the last 100 years of prophetic revelation has nothing even remotely in common with what is in the BOM.

[theplains]

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.

2 Nephi 10:19 says, "Wherefore, I will consecrate this land unto thy seed and them who shall be numbered among thy

seed, forever, for the land of their inheritance; for it is a choice land, saith God unto me, above all other lands,

wherefore I will have all men that dwell thereon that they shall worship me, saith God".

The introduction notes to this chapter say, "America shall be a land of liberty where no king shall rule".

What is this land in the Book of Mormon? United States only, US+Canada, only North America [with Mexico], or the

entire north+central+south?

Thanks,

Jim

[wayfarer]

2 Nephi 10:19 says, "Wherefore, I will consecrate this land unto thy seed and them who shall be numbered among thy

seed, forever, for the land of their inheritance; for it is a choice land, saith God unto me, above all other lands,

wherefore I will have all men that dwell thereon that they shall worship me, saith God".

The introduction notes to this chapter say, "America shall be a land of liberty where no king shall rule".

What is this land in the Book of Mormon? United States only, US+Canada, only North America [with Mexico], or the

entire north+central+south?

having lived in many of the "other lands", especially in Europe and Asia, I can attest to how poorly this example of American Exceptionalism plays elsewhere. the referenced chapter is also a witness to the nature of the book of mormon as having been revealed through the heart and mind of nineteenth-century New England sensibilities, where American Exceptionalism was firmly in their worldview.

think about it: if I am teaching a south asian that the book of mormon is literally the word of god, and that means that if they are righteous, their skin will turn white and they may be privileged enough to live in american promised land... bzzzzzzt! game over, thanks for playing. if on the other hand, i take a non-literal view that the book of mormon testifies that god talked to all nations, that the book of mormon is a witness for god incarnate (Jesus Christ) in america, and that the message that god speaks to all nations and they wrote about it... then, if i find the commonality between the gospel of jesus christ and that which was revealed in the vedas and uphanishads absent and before corrupt doctrines entered in them, we might have a real conversation.

when matteo ricci taught christianity to the chinese in the late sixteenth century, he didn't force christian culture onto them. instead, he taught them the gospel (christianity, at least) in the context of confucianism -- and had amazing success. Confucius was indeed inspired, although hundreds of years after confucius, when it became state religion, it corrupted. By Ricci restoring the chinese to the purer moral values in common between christianity and confucianism, the church prospered. once the jesuits called in for support for the growing church, the dominicans and franciscans, holding to the literal party line, completely undid Ricci's nonliteral and syncretic confucian/christian church. once they did, the chinese leadership expelled all christians from china. Had the success of Ricci continued, the existence of christianity as the main religion in china would have allowed the restored gospel to take better hold.

in like manner, ammon teaching Lamoni used language and terms like "Great Spirit" to convey the spirit of the gospel. it worked very well. perhaps his brothers took the more literal path, explaining how god favored nephi over laman because of righteousness (Nephite Exceptionalism) and how the lamanite beliefs are all wrong...we don't know.

Both Ammon and Ricci applied the Middle Way of balance, harmony, and authentic faith without being hung up on literalism to adapt their teachings. In fact, the Middle Way is spoken of in this way by Confucius, Buddha, and Thomas Cranmer (founder of the anglican reformation). Jesus taught in terms his disciples could understand, and certainly was not hung up on the literalness that caused so many of the Pharisees to stumble.

[Kevin Christensen]

To say that the modes of revelation currently experienced by church leaders and members is "nothing remotely in common" with revelation as described in the Book of Mormon overlooks the wide range of modes in which revelation is described in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. See the appendices here, listing around 30 different ways that revelation comes.

http://dl.dropbox.co..._experience.pdf

Nor does it do to suppose that everything that happens is made canon, or even public. Neither the events on the Mount of Transfiguration, nor the culminating revelation in the Kirtland Temple were published till many years had passed. To treat what even they considered exeptional as typical, and to overlook what they more commonly experienced as revelation has the effect of blinding a person to the sorts of revelation that are experienced today.

I've found that the main interpretive difficulties derive not as much from an either/or approach to literalism or symbolism in the scriptures, which employ both literal and symbolic language throughout, but in naive contextualization, usually in the form of ethocentric reading. Many things in the Book of Mormon cannot be understood properly unless they are read in cultural context (2 Nephi 25:1-5). The Allegory of the Olive Trees, for instance is best understood in light of the ancient cultural context. It's a symbolic story, but the symbols are drawn by and in a particular context. The cultural context casts light on what what the literal meaning was, as well as when an expression is symbolic, and what it really points to. For instance, the business of whiteness and skins and filthy garments, and filthy skins and skins of blackness and garments washed white in the blood of the lamb all should be read in light of cultural (see Gardner and Tvedtnes and Sorenson) and ritual contexts (especially Day of Atonement symbolism), and overlapping meanings in practical use within the text. If filthy garments are the equivalent of a skin of blackness, and skins can be garments, and both have specific meanings in the Ancient Near Eastern backgrounds that are not equivalent to 19th century usage, the presentist critiques have their limits. Brant's recent FAIR discussion of directions is instructive in the same way. As is Daniel Peterson on Nephi's Asherah. The whole point of the parable of the Sower is to illustrate the notion that the context and the nuture given a Word can make all of the different in the harvest. "Know ye not this parable? How then will ye know all parables?"

In 2 Nephi 10, since Jacob is the speaker, the land of promise in question must be in the Land of Nephi, which is on the the other side of the narrow strip of wilderness that goes from the East Sea to the West Sea, and which contains the source of the Sidon, a river that starts flowing from the West, to the East, then northward, has Zarahemla on it's West bank, and is fordable near there, and then seems to enter into the Sea East. Larry Poulson shows that the Grijalva is the only river in the Western Hemisphere that fits the description in the text. For an essential start, see Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, and Brant's FAIR presentation on direction.s

One thing that is clear in the Book of Mormon is that not only does the promise of cursing and blessing go with the bit of land that the narrators occupy at any given time, but that the covenant that goes with the covenant people applies to any land in which they are given as an inheritance.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited August 19, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[wayfarer]

I've found that the main interpretive difficulties derive not as much from an either/or approach to literalism or symbolism in the scriptures, which employ both literal and symbolic language throughout, but in naive contextualization, usually in the form of ethocentric reading. Many things in the Book of Mormon cannot be understood properly unless they are read in cultural context (2 Nephi 25:1-5).

Kevin,

Thank you for the reference to your paper, I found it fascinating and insightful. I assume you are reacting in this post to Robuchan's statement that modern revelation in the past 100 years has differed from the past. I don't think it has, but like you note in your message, not all revelatory experiences are for public consumption.

But then you go in and in detail, lay out a set of revelatory experiences in the book of mormon as if they are all factual examples. The thread topic is reacting to the idea of a book of mormon being 'inspired fiction', which Bill categorically rejects.

I am curious, however, after reading your paper, How do you interpret the first vision experience and from that the book of mormon itself? If you propose thirty different methods of revelation, many of which are not literal, then is it possible, in your opinion, that both the First Vision and the revealing of the Book of Mormon are more mystical/symbolic than literal?

What does it hurt in terms of mature faith if they turn out to be non-literal?

[bdouglas]

I'm new to the board, mostly I'm just an observer. I think I'd be too intimidated to try to post anything "intelligent", given the apparent level of education and expertise of board members. But still I felt the need to post the following....

Why the need to drive "marginal" or NOM Mormons into a corner with questions about BOM literalness? I come from a very large family, pioneer ancestors on both side, in fact on one side Hyrum Smith is a direct progenitor, on the other a prominent early church leader. But still in this family of mine there are all kinds of Mormons. We have the Bill Hamlyn type, the super-true believers; but we also have the Seth Payne type. A half-dozen or so of these Seth Payne types went on missions, came home, got their degrees and professional bona fides, married in the temple...and now would consider themselves "marginal" or NOM Mormons. So we have these two types in my family and everything in between. We get together once a year for a family reunion in Park City, and we take up an entire floor in the Marriott or some other hotel, and we sit around in the hot tubs or restaurants talking into the wee hours about...guess what?...Mormonism, the BOM, etc. Occasionally there are flare-ups, heated words, two or three times even launched missiles (usually a bread roll, something like that); but for the most part we recognize that we are all part of the same family, we like being together even if we disagree about some things, and that it is best to play down our differences rather than to accentuate them.

Just my two bits....

[wayfarer]

...We get together once a year for a family reunion in Park City, and we take up an entire floor in the Marriott or some other hotel, and we sit around in the hot tubs or restaurants talking into the wee hours about...guess what?...Mormonism, the BOM, etc. Occasionally there are flare-ups, heated words, two or three times even launched missiles (usually a bread roll, something like that); but for the most part we recognize that we are all part of the same family, we like being together even if we disagree about some things, and that it is best to play down our differences rather than to accentuate them.

Just my two bits....

Welcome, bdouglas. I think what you're seeing is exactly what you describe -- we're throwing bread rolls around a family mostly of saints with gifts differing. I suspect peter, james, and paul had their share of bread-fights as well.

"Now we are no longer strangers nor foreigners but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of god."

Your two-bits plus another two bucks will buy a cup of coffee at starbucks...

So which kind of mormon are you? Coffee...diet coke...postum...avoid-the-very-appearance-of-evil?

[Bill Hamblin]

As a matter of fact, you have hit the nail on the head. I did not say, anywhere, that the ontological reality of Christ visiting America was false. In fact, that is precisely the core truth of the Book of Mormon.

Note what the book of Mormon says:

If Jesus Christ manifests himself until every nation, kindred, tongue and people, then there is an objective, ontological reality as to how he does this. Apostate Christianity was stuck into the concept that God did this once and for all through Jesus Christ in a very small part of the world.

The book of mormon testifies that somehow, through means we do not fully understand, that Jesus -- the Great I AM (YHWH) -- manifest himself to people living in the Americas. I accept this in faith that this is an objective reality. This concept, that the manifestation of YHWH to the Americans, when detached from the fictional narrative, becomes a singularly critical thing for us to know and understand.

But the statement was not restricted just to two parts of the world. Indeed the Great I AM manifests himself to all nations, kindreds, tongues and people. How is this objectively so? Again, 2 Nephi answers:

Where are all these books? from the "other tribes"? From all nations of the earth? Where is the evidence of the Great I AM visiting each one of them? They exist. The book of mormon witnesses to that fact by virtue of its own ontological reality, as well as the pointers to the ontological reality of the great I AM to each nation, kindred, tongue and people.

The witness of the book of mormon, as I have noted before, opens up the world to receiving the objectively real manifestation of the I AM. When we literalize the book, we fail to see the ontological reality embodied in the very name of Jesus Christ: "I AM".

So, I accept that I AM visited the Americas, fully and completely -- in language they could understand, using symbols and tokens they could comprehend. That is the witness of the book of Mormon -- a very powerful one indeed, when we detach from literalism.

Now this is really getting silly. Here's the situation.

1- There were no Nephites, hence no golden plates, no Moroni, etc.

2- Christ really did appear to the Native Americans.

3- God then decided that, rather than reveal to JS the actual visit and teachings of the real Christ to historical Native Americans, he would instead reveal the Book of Mormon, fictional narrative of a non-manifestation of Christ to a non-existent people, while authenticating by angelophany the authenticity of non-existent golden plates.

4- Why didn't God simply reveal the real manifestation of Christ to the real Native Americans rather than a fake visit of Christ to non-existent and fictional Native Americans?

I'm sorry, but this is just nuts. If you want to believe that, that's fine with me. But it's completely incoherent, and demonstrates precisely the problems that arise with claims that the BOM is inspired fiction.

[bdouglas]

Welcome, bdouglas. I think what you're seeing is exactly what you describe -- we're throwing bread rolls around a family mostly of saints with gifts differing. I suspect peter, james, and paul had their share of bread-fights as well.

"Now we are no longer strangers nor foreigners but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of god."

Your two-bits plus another two bucks will buy a cup of coffee at starbucks...

So which kind of mormon are you? Coffee...diet coke...postum...avoid-the-very-appearance-of-evil?

What kind of Mormon am I? My considered opinion is that the best explanation for the existence of the BOM is the one JS gave. So yes, I believe there were gold plates, I believe the BOM is an actual historical record, not fiction. But there are plenty of NOMs and marginal LDS in my family and close circle who would disagree with me, one brother in particular, a brother who is a much better person than I am (and no, I am not just being nice here, I'm not just throwing him a bone) and far more Christlike. For my part, I do not think in the judgement the question is going to be did you believe in the orthodox religion but were you charitable and did you learn to love?

[Bill Hamblin]

What kind of Mormon am I? My considered opinion is that the best explanation for the existence of the BOM is the one JS gave. So yes, I believe there were gold plates, I believe the BOM is an actual historical record, not fiction. But there are plenty of NOMs and marginal LDS in my family and close circle who would disagree with me, one brother in particular, a brother who is a much better person than I am (and no, I am not just being nice here, I'm not just throwing him a bone) and far more Christlike. For my part, I do not think in the judgement the question is going to be did you believe in the orthodox religion but were you charitable and did you learn to love?

Well of course that's very important. But it doesn't mean its the only important thing, nor does it mean historicity is not important.

The most important thing is coming unto Christ and being his true disciple. This entails much, much more than just being nice. It makes a huge difference if Christ is the Son of the Living God, or if he was just a confused first century Galilean itinerant teacher.

The BOM, if historical, if historical, shows that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father. If it is not historical, it doesn't even show that he was a confused first century Galilean itinerant teacher.

[bdouglas]

Well of course that's very important. But it doesn't mean its the only important thing, nor does it mean historicity is not important.

The most important thing is coming unto Christ and being his true disciple. This entails much, much more than just being nice. It makes a huge difference if Christ is the Son of the Living God, or if he was just a confused first century Galilean itinerant teacher.

The BOM, if historical, if historical, shows that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father. If it is not historical, it doesn't even show that he was a confused first century Galilean itinerant teacher.

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

[wayfarer]

Now this is really getting silly. Here's the situation.

1- There were no Nephites, hence no golden plates, no Moroni, etc.

2- Christ really did appear to the Native Americans.

3- God then decided that, rather than reveal to JS the actual visit and teachings of the real Christ to historical Native Americans, he would instead reveal the Book of Mormon, fictional narrative of a non-manifestation of Christ to a non-existent people, while authenticating by angelophany the authenticity of non-existent golden plates.

4- Why didn't God simply reveal the real manifestation of Christ to the real Native Americans rather than a fake visit of Christ to non-existent and fictional Native Americans?

I'm sorry, but this is just nuts. If you want to believe that, that's fine with me. But it's completely incoherent, and demonstrates precisely the problems that arise with claims that the BOM is inspired fiction.

Incoherent to you, Bill, but then again, I'm becoming not surprised at all with this.

Bill, it's a fictional narrative upon which divine principles are taught. It is a book requiring faith to understand, not historical analysis. It even says, by itself, it's not history. It doesn't have to be. Did the Exodus actually have to occur in order for the biblical authors to construct a narrative?

Have you studied how god dictates history? Is there any precedent where god dictated any history? Or, did he use the mythological narratives and stories present in the cultural mindset of those to whom he taught?

Please give me one instance outside of the book of mormon where god dictated an accurate history.

As for in what form did Jesus/I AM present himself to the native americans, who knows? Is this information known in detail?

The existential value of the Book of Mormon is not in its history, but in its existence as scripture (opening canon), its teachings and it's witness. What it witnesses to is that God speaks to all of his children among all nations and that they would write about it. This should be a big hint ot scholars to start looking for the writings of god amongst all nations -- since you are a historian, have you done this? I know Nibley did.

The BOM, if historical, if historical, shows that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father. If it is not historical, it doesn't even show that he was a confused first century Galilean itinerant teacher.

Well, Bill, that's your opinion to which you are entitled. You're just repeating your tired argument and not responding to how these arguments have been answered. I don't share your opinion, at all, for it demonstrates a type of white-and-black thinking inconsistent with a reasoned and mature understanding of biblical textual history and the history of this marvellous LDS faith.

I've noticed you do not respond to reasoned discourse coming from the middle way position, prefering to keep asking the distinctly illogical question, 'why would god do x", rather than answer my, and others' questions as to how you reconcile, for example, the textual history of deuteronomy, etc. I would have thought with your extensive biblical history understanding that you would be familiar, at least, with the lack of any valid historical evidence of the scale of exodus, the pious fraud of Josiah, the textual problems with the old testament, the challenges with the literalism in all scripture, and the challenges with authenticity among the gospel accounts. I would have thought a scholar such as yourself would at least be open to the idea that there are profound challenges in the Book of Mormon as a literal document, but I see that you cannot see what is painfully obvious.

My faith in the restored gospel and in the Savior does not require literalism. Hence, as I facilitated trying to bring peace to the hostile internet community of mormons in the 90s, as I learned of the many issues in church history, my faith was never shaken, and I didn't have to resort to creative, illogical apologetic solutions to twist my thinking into a literalist milieu.

Faith in a thing not true is not faith at all, but delusion. According to Henry Eyring in his father's advice to him, there is no requirement in the Church to believe a thing that is in conflict with truth. As we come to a mature understanding of history and the evolution of our understanding of the mysteries of godliness, we necessarily need to set aside things proven to be not true. I do not see in you the willingness to consider this.

Valid defense of mormonism in the future will require a more seasoned and reasoned discourse with those who do not share your literal belief in things, especially those things like book of mormon literalism that are extraordinarily unlikely to be true in historical details. It was my hope that we could share reasoned discourse, but I see that is not the case.

adieu.

Edited August 19, 2012 by wayfarer

[wayfarer]

For my part, I do not think in the judgement the question is going to be did you believe in the orthodox religion but were you charitable and did you learn to love?

Amen. That is the more excellent Way. That is the Way of the two great commandments.

[DonBradley]

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

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

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

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

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

Don