A Fictional Book Of Mormon?

[Libs]

Wayfarer, do you mind if ask about your beliefs, in regards to Jesus?

Do you believe he was the Son of God and our Savior? Do you believe in the miracles, his resurrection and appearance to the Apostles, etc? I take it you don't believe he literally appeared to the Nephites, if you don't believe the Book of Mormon is literal history?

I think I am seeing the distinction between the two views (literal vs fiction) and why they seem to be so at odds with one another.

[Libs]

Ah, I didn't see your post, Don. I think you are going in the direction, in which, I was trying to go, with my questions.

[Bill Hamblin]

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

Exactly.

[Bill Hamblin]

There is another important thing to note.

Historicity and literality are two entirely different things. Historicity refers to ontology of past events. Literality refers to qualities of meaning in a text.

A fictional BOM could say, literally, "Jesus is the Son of God." It could also use the language metaphorically, with Son of God meaning a divinely inspired prophet, but not literally the Son of the Father.

Likewise, a historical BOM can literally say, "Jesus is the Son of God." It can also metaphorically say that the world is a vineyard, as in Jacob 5. A historical BOM is still filled with literal, metaphorical and metaphysical truths. A fictional BOM, however, cannot contain historical truth.

Conflating historicity with literality is a serious methodological mistake.

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

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.

I understand that fiction can teach divine truths. Of course it can. That's not, and never has been, the point of the discussion.

The problem is that a fictional BOM wreaks havoc with the foundational claims of JS regarding theophany, Moroni, golden plates, etc.

The question is not, and never has been, how the BOM functions as a purveyor of divine truth. The question is what are the implications for the prophetic claims of JS. It's two different questions. It is two different questions. I'm asking about the implications for JS, while the defenders of a fictional BOM refuse to deal with that issue, and change the subject.

[wayfarer]

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.

Excellent point, Don. But as for a "proof" of the resurrection, we first need faith somewhere in the equation. And the historicity of the book of mormon has not left us with that proof, much as the apologists here have tried to find one.

To use Bill's tired "why would god" questions..."Why would god make it so hard to find any actual historical evidence of the book of mormon"? That has to be a tough one for the literalists. Do you think, maybe, that god really, really does want us to exercise faith here? And if I have "faith" that Jesus Christ lives, that he is the Son of God, that he paves the way for our resurrection through his own, then do I need the book to be literal?

[volgadon]

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.

I gave you a rep point not because I agree with all your points, but because this was a well-thought out post, and I have lived most of my life outside the USA and don't feel "American". I do however see things differently. Kevin was right about the issue being contextual and cultural rather than literal vs. allegorical. Colour had deep symbolic meanings, white being pure, black the opposite. Laban's name is a fantastic example of an ironic usage, as it means white, but he is a crooked swindler throughout most of the narrative. People certainly weren't stupid, they realised that the sun would darken your skin, but also considered also that a dark (or darker) skin could be given by God as punishment for wrongdoing. This is an example of something spiritual and allegorical expressed by a literal, physical phenomenon, or at least considered so by the writers. Were I teaching a South Asian, I wouldn't shy away from literalism, though of course I would brush up on their beliefs too. I would teac that the Book of Mormon was revealed to a prophet who enjoyed literal visitations from God, that the book is an actual sacred history of an actual people, showing God's concern for his people every where, how there is individual sin which must be atoned for, which is why God sent His son, and restored his power and authority in this day. I would use as many terms and examples from their own culture as I could, just as in Russia I used Orthodox terminology and emphasised things that Russians related to best. When I spoke with Muslims, I did the same. None of that requires a non-literal approach, only cultural sensitivity. The notion of an active God involved in the fate and lives of his children, a God setting forth moral and ritual requirements, is at the heart of the Bible, the BoM, indeed, all revealed scripture.

I've had a fascination with Matteo Ricci since childhood, but I wonder though if you aren't making a little too much of Ricci's openness to Chinese culture. To show his loyalty to the Christian faith after his baptism, Paul Li had to burn his extensive library publicaly, like the burning of idols required from the peasents. Ricci was strongly anti-Buddhist and Confucius was seen as a proto-Christian, like Seneca or Plato. He was thoroughly Christianised by Ricci, rather than Christ being thoroughly Confucianised. Christianity was also slow to spread because of its very dogmatic nature, repudiating a great deal of then-current Chinese beliefs. It was presented as THE truth, rather than a truth. Ricci was definitely more attune to Chinese culture than many of his contemporaries, a very tolerant individual for the times, but he still held to fundamental Christian dogmas, and his famous treatise used natural theology in a Confucian garb in order to refute Buddhism, Taoism, and neo-Confucianism. The later work, Ten Paradoxes, is a very gentle and reasoned polemic against aspects of Chinese belief in opposition to Christian dogmas, as well as an attempt to give acceptable practices a Christian content.

The Jesuit presence in China was always on rocky ground, mainly tolerated if the Jesuits didn't pose a threat to peace and stability, and if Western science was considered useful. Ricci's policy oftolerance towards certain Confucian rites, and the use of Confucian terminology did encourage success, but in perspective, these were relatively moderate concessions, allowing Chinese to keep secular aspects of their culture. If it was something of a religious nature, then it was condemned as idolatry.

[volgadon]

Is there any precedent where god dictated any history?

D&C 74. I'm actually lazily writing a paper on it, why we can take it seriously, and the implications it had both for the saints and for the JST.

[wayfarer]

Wayfarer, do you mind if ask about your beliefs, in regards to Jesus?

Do you believe he was the Son of God and our Savior? Do you believe in the miracles, his resurrection and appearance to the Apostles, etc? I take it you don't believe he literally appeared to the Nephites, if you don't believe the Book of Mormon is literal history?

I think I am seeing the distinction between the two views (literal vs fiction) and why they seem to be so at odds with one another.

I absolutely believe and have faith that Jesus was Son of God and Savior. I have a hope for the resurrection through the atonement. As for the miracles and reported stories in the scriptures, I have an understanding that the magical worldview of those who wrote that information may have colored some of the miracles, because they were passed around for quite a few years before being put down. Things like the water into wine, sending the devils into the swine, and cursing of a fig tree seem a bit absurd, but I suspend judgment on that which I don't know.

Faith and belief are not knowledge. I accept in this the possibility that my faiths and beliefs could be wrong, therefore my attitude toward miracles and the origin stories of the book of mormon are characterized by faith, and not knowledge. There is an important difference.

I seek only truth. If the origin story of a literal book of mormon proves to be not true, then my faith in that, alone, can be set aside without having a cascading failure of the rest of my faith.

The point is that my approach to faith is not a blanket acceptance of all things in scripture based upon one fact. That's not how Alma 32 lays out the process. Instead, I base my faith on the thing itself -- Jesus Christ, Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith etc., are independent items in my faith. The problem with coagulating all things into one faith schema, is when the root of that schema, such as the historicity of the Book of Mormon fails, then the entire schema fails. That's why so many devout LDS are leaving the church as the apologetic answers become more ridiculous in trying to defend book of mormon historicity.

[wayfarer]

I gave you a rep point not because I agree with all your points, but because this was a well-thought out post, and I have lived most of my life outside the USA and don't feel "American". I do however see things differently.

The Jesuit presence in China was always on rocky ground, mainly tolerated if the Jesuits didn't pose a threat to peace and stability, and if Western science was considered useful. Ricci's policy oftolerance towards certain Confucian rites, and the use of Confucian terminology did encourage success, but in perspective, these were relatively moderate concessions, allowing Chinese to keep secular aspects of their culture. If it was something of a religious nature, then it was condemned as idolatry.

Of course we see things differently -- and in reasoned dialogue, we can learn -- or at least I can gain much from reading your posts.

There is even a sinister side of Ricci in adopting confucianism -- it was the cultural control pattern of the wealthy and powerful, and buddhism/taoism was the superstitious faith of the underclasses. Ricci spoke to power: beautifully, masterfully, and maybe a bit cynically. In the end, he may have been more confucian than christian as a result.

Yet the message is powerful. I think the Ammon message is even more powerful, because in the end, the Ammonites became more solid followers of the gospel than the Nephite culture itself. amazing stuff.

thanks!

[Libs]

I absolutely believe and have faith that Jesus was Son of God and Savior. I have a hope for the resurrection through the atonement. As for the miracles and reported stories in the scriptures, I have an understanding that the magical worldview of those who wrote that information may have colored some of the miracles, because they were passed around for quite a few years before being put down. Things like the water into wine, sending the devils into the swine, and cursing of a fig tree seem a bit absurd, but I suspend judgment on that which I don't know.

Faith and belief are not knowledge. I accept in this the possibility that my faiths and beliefs could be wrong, therefore my attitude toward miracles and the origin stories of the book of mormon are characterized by faith, and not knowledge. There is an important difference.

I seek only truth. If the origin story of a literal book of mormon proves to be not true, then my faith in that, alone, can be set aside without having a cascading failure of the rest of my faith.

The point is that my approach to faith is not a blanket acceptance of all things in scripture based upon one fact. That's not how Alma 32 lays out the process. Instead, I base my faith on the thing itself -- Jesus Christ, Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith etc., are independent items in my faith. The problem with coagulating all things into one faith schema, is when the root of that schema, such as the historicity of the Book of Mormon fails, then the entire schema fails. That's why so many devout LDS are leaving the church as the apologetic answers become more ridiculous in trying to defend book of mormon historicity.

Thanks, Wayfarer.

I'm really just still trying to sort out the differences. I do understand what Bill was saying about the Book of Mormon not being a testament of Christ, if it's not literal. It cannot testify of Christ, if it's not a part of the true history of Christ. That's why I was asking you about your beliefs, as far as miracles, etc. If you believe the book is fiction, what do you do with the story of Christ coming to visit the Nephites? You don't believe that literally happened, right? So, would it be just an allegory of how Christ "visits" all peoples of the world, on some level? How do you interpret that story, if it's fiction? You believe in an actual historic Christ, right?

[volgadon]

Of course we see things differently -- and in reasoned dialogue, we can learn -- or at least I can gain much from reading your posts.

There is even a sinister side of Ricci in adopting confucianism -- it was the cultural control pattern of the wealthy and powerful, and buddhism/taoism was the superstitious faith of the underclasses. Ricci spoke to power: beautifully, masterfully, and maybe a bit cynically. In the end, he may have been more confucian than christian as a result.

Yet the message is powerful. I think the Ammon message is even more powerful, because in the end, the Ammonites became more solid followers of the gospel than the Nephite culture itself. amazing stuff.

thanks!

I enjoy differing viewpoints.

I've not read as much of Ricci as I would like, but do you know of any instances or statements in which he opposed conversion by coercion? I'm thinking of when upper-class Chinese converts forced their households and servants to convert too.

What I find interesting in Ammon's missionary efforts is that Lamoni's view of things, an impersonal God which allowed his followers to do as they would, was shaken. That opened him to the possibility that he was wrong, and Ammon, after gauging his audience's knowledge and beliefs, directed them towards the truth as he knew it. He identified the God he believed in with the God Lamoni believed in, then proceeded to share the true aspects of God, even though at odds with what Lamoni believed. Lamoni embraced that truth even though it was very different to what he used to believe, even though following it, IE., repenting, was extraordinarily painful, and he was granted a mystical experience of his own.

[wayfarer]

Thanks, Wayfarer.

I'm really just still trying to sort out the differences. I do understand what Bill was saying about the Book of Mormon not being a testament of Christ, if it's not literal. It cannot testify of Christ, if it's not a part of the true history of Christ. That's why I was asking you about your beliefs, as far as miracles, etc. If you believe the book is fiction, what do you do with the story of Christ coming to visit the Nephites? You don't believe that literally happened, right? So, would it be just an allegory of how Christ "visits" all peoples of the world, on some level? How do you interpret that story, if it's fiction? You believe in an actual historic Christ, right?

Absolutely. I believe in the historic Christ and take the scriptures -- including the book of mormon -- at face value. They could be historical, they could be recited testimony of a historical event, but the truth is WE DON'T KNOW. That's what this little thing called 'faith' is all about.

Historicity has nothing to do with my testimony. Nothing whatsoever at all. That came through prayer and meditation and profound personal experience, after being completely redeemed from alcoholism and drug addiction -- something that historical wrangling could never give me. After a personal experience of the Savior, nothing historical matters in the least. Wrangling over history simply detracts. From the first time I read the Book of mormon in roughly a 30 hour consecutive period, through each additional time reading, I have had the spiritual witness of Jesus Christ undetracted by historical musings.

As I taught Gospel Doctrine for years, I deeply appreciated that there was nothing to speculate about in the history of the book of mormon. Because it is exactly what it is -- we teach a clear, unintellectualized pure gospel message within the Book of Mormon. It's a delight. When I teach old testament or new testament, or even D&C church history, there is the thrill of a teacher to find all sorts of parallel accounts and historical color from the actual events. This detracts from the pure gospel message. That's why I love the book of mormon -- it simply exists. it teaches. it testifies.

But Bill is taking the incredibly naive and extreme position that it's all or nothing -- a false dichotomy that a mature apologist should never adopt: "If it is not historical, it doesn't even show that he was a confused first century Galilean itinerant teacher." This false dichotomy aids and comforts our enemies, who can seed fear, uncertainty and doubt about the Book of Mormon, through questions of its historicity that should not matter to its divine content. BH Roberts fully understood the logical and historical challenges to the Book, yet remained faithful to its spiritual content to his dying day. Something our enemies do not understand. My hope is that a more balanced testimony of the book can prevail, but not here. not in this context, not among those who use polemic to try to marginalize us who are trying to have a balanced faith.

Edited August 20, 2012 by wayfarer

[wayfarer]

What I find interesting in Ammon's missionary efforts is that Lamoni's view of things, an impersonal God which allowed his followers to do as they would, was shaken. That opened him to the possibility that he was wrong, and Ammon, after gauging his audience's knowledge and beliefs, directed them towards the truth as he knew it. He identified the God he believed in with the God Lamoni believed in, then proceeded to share the true aspects of God, even though at odds with what Lamoni believed. Lamoni embraced that truth even though it was very different to what he used to believe, even though following it, IE., repenting, was extraordinarily painful, and he was granted a mystical experience of his own.

I'm not sure how far Ammon got to a complete understanding of god's nature before Lamoni had enough of a witness to come to Christ. I have become convinced that God speaks in languages we understand, line upon line, precept upon precept.

As for Ricci, he was correct in rejecting the Taoist and Buddhist religions as taught during the exant time period -- it was full of hocus pocus and mysticism. He did adopt ancestor worship, and how he reconciled that to Christianity I'll never know. I have studied and lived philosophical daoism and advaita hinduism in great detail, having lived in asia for long periods. when we peel away the religious mumbo-jumbo, there are deep, eternal truths in their ancient texts. I am proficient in guwen/classical chinese written language, and I've translated texts finding portions of the words of very sacred LDS scripture therein. "Health in the navel, and marrow in the bone" (D&C 89 and elsewhere) is to be found in the texts, properly translated. yet when I went to guan/temples, I found nothing of meaning there. I found extraordinary insights in hindu scripture, but then when I spent a lot of time with a hindu brahman priest, he said the words don't matter, only that it is pronounced and chanted correctly....(sigh).

[Libs]

Thanks agains, Wayfarer. This is all very interesting!

This false dichotomy aids and comforts our enemies, who can seed fear, uncertainty and doubt about the Book of Mormon, through questions of its historicity that should not matter to its divine content.

Yes, I know that from experience, unfortunately. Discussion about the historicity of the Book of Mormon was one of the things that caused me to start doubting my testimony. But, once God gives you something, he doesn't take it away. That I still had those "feelings" for the book, was a curse, at first, or so I thought, but after awhile, I surrendered to it (to my testimony) because I knew it was real. I didn't know how to piece back together, the portions of my faith that were left to me, so I did starting wondering if, perhaps, the Book of Mormon was inspired fiction (I knew that it was inspired). But, then, there was the problem of it's purpose, which was to be a Testament and testimony of Jesus Christ...which HAD to be "real", historically, because if it's just a "story", it has no power or meaning, in reality. That's why I was interested in how you were seeing, both, inspired fiction, but a "real" Christ, in the Book of Mormon.

I am proficient in guwen/classical chinese written language, and I've translated texts finding portions of the words of very sacred LDS scripture therein. "Health in the navel, and marrow in the bone" (D&C 89 and elsewhere) is to be found in the texts, properly translated.

That's very interesting!

I have seen the Book of Mormon compared to Kabbalistic symbolism, as well. Terry Shirts did an interesting video on that. I think there are some universal "stories" and symbols that Heavenly Father threads throughout all religions, in an attempt to teach and draw us back to him.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Libs

[wayfarer]

I think it was probably 15 years ago when my very best friend, a bishop, whose wife had been stake relief society president, up and left the church directly from full activity. Letter of resignation and all. And I have seen so many leave -- not because of sinning, or being offended, or anything else -- just that they allowed the doubt of truth claims to harm their testimony.

Importantly, for those who leave on the most accelerated schedule, it's because they've bought into this "all or nothing" false dichotomy. Once someone begins to have cognitive dissonance, an emotional cascade caused by a total collapse of the Church faith schema ensues, particularly if 'all true or all fraud' thinking is at the base of the schema.

I never had that all or nothing paradigm: my ancestors left utah during the disintegration of polygamy and never returned, and my parents grew up during the depression when my grandfather, as bishop, took to alcohol and destroyed the family. Things were pretty ugly for my parents growing up, and we had to learn practical mormonism in order to survive. Dogmatic thinking never had a place.

I feel for those who cannot adapt to the changes. I was fortunate enough to be working in the Church Office Building during June, 1978, the day the announcement about blacks and the priesthood was made. The air was electrifying -- a prophet had revealed that we were wrong (in a way). Since I was a mssionary prior to that, and had to teach blacks they couldn't have the priesthood as a "doctrine", I learned a lesson -- let's try not to get so hung up on some aspect of doctrine -- we live in a church run by prophets, and further light and knowledge may correct our current understanding -- so let's be open about it.

Returning to the topic, that's why I don't care whether the Book of Mormon is literal or figurative. saying "divine fiction" is probably a bad idea, because it shakes the trees too hard. It is probably better to recognize that 'we don't know' the process, or the specifics of the history, but we believe that it represents an authentic set of events, filtered through the lens of revelation, and hold that its witness is authentic. (do we KNOW...no. but since some people care...) I'm not opposed to leaving it open to faith and possibility.

[Libs]

Appreciate your sharing, Wayfarer. I sure have meant a lot of "different" kinds of Mormons, since I left the church. I had no idea.

[wayfarer]

You can always come back. We need more in the middle... :-)

[Libs]

Yeah....I think about coming back fairly often. Maybe, one of these days.

[wayfarer]

Here is my talk from a week ago, based upon Elder Holland's last conference address. I wrote it for people like you. We need you.

[Libs]

Wayfarer, thank you for sharing that! A very thoughtful talk. I enjoyed that very much. Also, loved that talk by Elder Holland. I remember listening to that one. (I still tune into GC, most of the time)

Edited August 20, 2012 by Libs

[rodheadlee]

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.

With just a quick google search it would appear Mexico has had a president since 1856. I have not really studied the others but I will.

[Bart Burk]

With just a quick google search it would appear Mexico has had a president since 1856. I have not really studied the others but I will.

Have you read about the Cristero Rebellion in the 1920s which occurred because the Mexican government had turned socialist and was banning the Catholic Church from operating and completely doing away with freedom of religion?

[Kevin Christensen]

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.

You are welcome. My post was reacting to several posts,l including Robuchan.

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?

I interpret Joseph Smith's first vision as his own first vision. In the Wentworth account he says, "my mind was taken from the objects with which I was surrounded and I was enrapt in heavenly vision." Another person watching would probably not have seen anything other than Joseph looking up. I believe that the commucation was real and from a source outside of Joseph Smith. I think the best way to understand the implications of the vision are to read in in a broad context, including in comparison to other near contemporary conversion theophanies (as Bushman does), NDE accounts, and a whole range of other theophanies. Personally, I find that such comparisons increase my appreciation for the transformative reality of the experience.

And for the Book of Mormon, I believe that a real person named Lehi had visions in Jerusalem 600 BCE, and that the text includes his, and other eye-witness accounts, which we have, not dictacted by God, but the meaning transmitted through Joseph Smith according to his language and understanding. I wrote an essay comparing Alma's conversion experience to modern and ancient NDE accounts. Alma talks and behaves in a typical manner. In that context, he's not a clone of Paul, but a representative of a distinct pattern of human behavior. One of my favorite essays on the Book of Mormon is Gordon Thomasson and Lisa Bowlin Hawkin's "Survivor Witness in the Book of Mormon" in which they compare the characters or Mormon and Moroni to the behavior and attitudes of certain 20th century death camp survivors who felt compelled to survive and bear witness.

I see the Book of Mormon as a translation of eye-witness accounts.

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?

I think it's important to be very careful about meaning and implication. When I describe modes of revelation, then the existence of real divine revelation is a separate issue from the problem of how to best understand it. The symbolic image of the tree of life and the angelic explanation of the birth of Jesus to Mary are both part of the same historical experience that Nephi had. Both the symbolic image and the angel's interpretation of literal events point to the same real referents.

Take the visit of the Ghost to Hamlet. The Ghost whispers in Hamlet's ear that he was murdered by Claudius, and he charges Hamlet to seek revenge. Inside the play, the ghost is real. Outside the play, he is an actor, for example, Brian Blessed in Branaugh's brilliant film. So what is real about it? The key to what is real in the play is if and when a play goer realizes that what the Ghost whispers into Hamlet's ear is the dramatic equivalent of the poison that Claudius had poured in his own ear. If a viewer grasps that key symbol, they have a chance of understanding the real implications of the play as a whole. If they think that the Ghost has provided Hamlet with a divine commission, that seeking revenge is just and good, noble and heroic, and never mind the personal costs, or the lies one must tell, or who else ends up dead, that one has become the twin of one's percieved enemies in a large measure by percieving them as enemies, then what has been offered towards opening a person's eyes, and changing their real life actions and attitudes in the future, has failed and has in part, become the disease it attempts to cure, has become more poison poured in our ears.

See how what is literal and symbolic and what is fictive and historical all in practice, intersect and blurr in and out of each other in real life? It does so because the symbols are pointers with real referents, some inside the fictive world, and some beyond it. "All-or-nothing" thinking doesn't work there either.

For an essay "Paradigms Crossed" in RBBM 7:2, I wrote this:

Potentially, of course, someone who sees the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction, even as a myth (in the sense of a myth as a transcendent story—not as a falsehood), should be able to provide an illuminating reading by focusing on teachings, the vivid relevance of the stories, or the sublime literary aspects. The truth of the parables of Jesus does not depend on their historicity, but on their resonance in the life of the listener. While it has nothing to do with history, Shakespeare's King Lear hits me with such a profound urgency that I must consider it an inspired work.¹¹⁵ In some questions of biblical historicity, as with the Jonah story, to fret about the dimensions of the whale's throat is to miss the point entirely and bury the immediate relevance of the story in trivia.¹¹⁶ And consider the mileage Joseph Campbell gets by likening various myths to crucial issues that arise in the course of our lives. But when a Joseph Campbell or Shakespeare or Jesus has the skill and insight to inject a myth, a scriptural story, a play, or a parable into your personal history, the stories cease to be pure fiction because they literalize around your experience. Symbols cease to be mere abstractions when they connect to your own history.¹¹⁷ In such cases, the stories provide both light and urgency.

I do not think that you have to believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon to find it valuable and inspired, nor do I think that you must believe in the historicity in the Book of Mormon to be a Mormon, nor that belief alone suffices to make you a good person, nor that disbelief makes you a bad person. It should be possible to critique a particular reading or approach to the Book of Mormon without necessarily depreciating the Book of Mormon as scripture. But while a range of factors in our spiritual lives can serve to sustain individual commitment to a community, we must recognize that it is the Book of Mormon that defines this community.

http://maxwellinstit...=7&num=2&id=193

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

Again, from my "Paradigms Crossed."

Every community celebrates and re-enacts particular historical events which are crucial to its corporate identity and its vision of reality.

178

"What distinguished Mormonism," writes Richard Bushman, "was not so much the Gospel Mormons taught, which in many respects resembled other Christians' teachings, but what they believed had happened—to Joseph Smith, to Book of Mormon characters, and to Moses and Enoch [and later to the pioneers, during their archetypal exodus to the west]. . . . The core of Mormon belief was a conviction about actual events. . . . Mormonism was history, not philosophy."¹⁷⁹

The historicity of the Book of Mormon is just one aspect of our religious experience, but as the keystone of the faith, it takes the predominant role in defining the community. Questions regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon deal with how much the Mormon community possesses that is above and beyond that which is available elsewhere. This is how Doctrine and Covenants 1:30 expresses it, defining the Latter-day Saint charter not in terms of exclusive truth and virtue, but in terms of key distinctions (D&C 1:22-23, 29-30), whose validity is signified by the Book of Mormon.

Questions regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon, then, involve the key issue in paradigm debate: that is, whether our community provides better descriptions of the divine nature, better access to the divine, and whether the religious problems that Mormonism solves, or promises to solve eventually,¹⁸⁰ are the most important ones to have solved. The questions raised in New Approaches usually have to do with the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and thereby relate most directly not to issues of faith, but to community. As Hutchinson puts it:

To the degree we disparage the holiness and value of the Book of Mormon, we alienate ourselves from the LDS tradition and define ourselves as outside of that tradition. (p. 4)

I regard investigation of the historicity of the Book of Mormon as essential toward developing contexts that unveil the messages in the text. But notice that Alma, far from offering an "all or nothing" gospel, invites his listeners to begin with "no more than [a] desire to believe," and to apply that desire to even "a portion of my words" (Alma 32:27). Alma even leaves it to his listeners to decide on that plantable portion for themselves, and of the whole of his words he freely acknowledges, "You cannot know of their surety at first." The important thing is that they plant something that can grow in their hearts. As long as that portion can take root and grow, we can hope for everything else over time.

I think Mormonism is better in terms of "well pleasingness" relative to the real referents of symbols such as true vine, living bread, living waters, "truth and life," "living way", "living stones." etc. I do not believe or teach in an all or nothing approach to scripture, history, faith, or people.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited August 20, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Excellent post, Kevin. Hear, hear!