On Fairy Stories And The Book Of Mormon

[mapman]

Over at By Common Consent, Ronan Head has recently written about JRR Tolkien's essay On Fairy Stories and the Book of Mormon, suggesting that one way to understand the Book of Mormon is as a fairie story. Tolkien defined fairie stories this way:

The definition of a fairy-story—what it is, or what it should be—does not, then, depend on any definition or historical account of elf or fairy, but upon the nature of Faërie: the Perilous Realm itself, and the air that blows in that country. I will not attempt to define that, nor to describe it directly. It cannot be done. Faërie cannot be caught in a net of words; for it is one of its qualities to be indescribable, though not imperceptible. It has many ingredients, but analysis will not necessarily discover the secret of the whole. Yet I hope that what I have later to say about the other questions will give some glimpses of my own imperfect vision of it. For the moment I will say only this: a “fairy-story” is one which touches on or uses Faerie, whatever its own main purpose may be: satire, adventure, morality, fantasy. Faerie itself may perhaps most nearly be translated by Magic—but it is magic of a peculiar mood and power, at the furthest pole from the vulgar devices of the laborious, scientific, magician. There is one proviso : if there is any satire present in the tale, one thing must not be made fun of, the magic itself. That must in that story be taken seriously, neither laughed at nor explained away. Of this seriousness the medieval Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is an admirable example.

Ronan argues that the Book of Mormon borders on being in the Perilous Realm as it goes from being rooted in a well understood location and time period in the Old World to a self-consistent to a land "full of slippery treasures and moving mountains and, most importantly, the seamen who found it seemed to have sailed off the edge of the world and into Aman."

So some questions:

Can the Book of Mormon be read as a fairy story?

How can we tell what genre the scriptures were intended to be?

If we read the Book of Mormon as a fairy story, what does that tell us about the geography, characters, and historical events described in the book?

[cinepro]

I think the term "faerie story", no matter how well defined, is too loaded.

But I suspect it's a good description of how many LDS read the book without realizing it.

[Storm Rider]

To attempt to redefine what is clearly stated seems to purposely strain at reality in an effort to make what is real unreal, what is true to be false all in the vain effort to satisfy the disbelief of the individual. I find it arrogant to attempt to then use such an ambiguous label as "faerie" to describe how "many LDS read the book without realizing it". What is the Book of Mormon - it is a book of scripture and is read as a book of scripture by those who commit themselves be being disciples of Jesus Christ. When it stands so clearly before one's eyes and then we purposely blind ourselves to satisfy the finite understanding of the individual only results in a perilous journey into a life devoid of faith and without direction and willingly blown about by the doctrines of men.

[volgadon]

Over at By Common Consent, Ronan Head has recently written about JRR Tolkien's essay On Fairy Stories and the Book of Mormon, suggesting that one way to understand the Book of Mormon is as a fairie story. Tolkien defined fairie stories this way:

Ronan argues that the Book of Mormon borders on being in the Perilous Realm as it goes from being rooted in a well understood location and time period in the Old World to a self-consistent to a land "full of slippery treasures and moving mountains and, most importantly, the seamen who found it seemed to have sailed off the edge of the world and into Aman."

So some questions:

Can the Book of Mormon be read as a fairy story?

How can we tell what genre the scriptures were intended to be?

If we read the Book of Mormon as a fairy story, what does that tell us about the geography, characters, and historical events described in the book?

I think when one looks at actual faerie tales, mainly Christian, but also a few Jewish ones, there really isn't a great deal of shared elements with the BoM.

Here is an example of one kind of fairy tale. Shows the sort of interactions between denizens of different worlds lacking in the BoM.

http://tam-lin.org/front.html

http://tam-lin.org/versions/brons.html

[Calm]

I doubt that Tolkien would have equated the Bible with his fairy stories, if not the Bible then not the Book of Mormon.

[Calm]

I see that Ronan makes something of the same observation, but draws a different conclusion in spite of it:

"As far as I know, Tolkien never really made clear why scripture is not Faërie — certainly it contains tales of the fantastic and otherworldly. He seems to simply accept, as a Catholic, that the Gospel is the “true myth.” Given that the Book of Mormon is consciously presented as scripture, I can only suggest that it treads the borderlands of Faërie and nothing more. Mostly, and thanks to Tolkien, I want to alert the reader to the possibility that the Word of God can be presented in different genres in one book: history, poetry, prophecy, myth . . . and perhaps even fantasy (avoid the slander directed towards that term). That Nephi may have lived in our world of men but Alma trod the land of Faërie seems entirely possible to me. It also helps explain why I feel sympathetic to studies of Nahom and the Arabian coast but simultaneously think that Book of Mormon archaeology in America is a fool’s errand."

Eden is much more Faerie than anything in the BoM and no talking asses either.

[Calm]

The angels of scripture are not "other" as are the Fae, they come across as quite like humans (are human in lds thought) no matter how hard men have worked to make them creatures of wonder and fantasy.

And God is made human...while that can be found in many a fairy tale and the reverse, the meaning of God's incarnation transcends the less universal quality of faes brought down and trapped in the mundane.

Christ is not some form of half elven nor Arwen diminishing her glory and divine nature by sacrificing for a human soul out of an eternal, but limited in that story's love saga.

I think it is instead a desire to increase one's appreciation of the BoM by grafting it into a well loved genre.

Edited January 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Fairie stories are less about location and exploration and all about transformationand most end in a diminishment of Fairieonce it comes in contact with the mundane, it fades...while in scripture the mundane blooms and acquires glory by walking with the True Lord of All and that divine growth becomes real and eternal. There is a competition for life between the mundane and the miraculous in most fairy stories and one side must always lose.

No, what Ronan is looking for are the old maps of monsters be here, Tolkien hold scripture too high to subject it to the coarseness and coolness of those who have no heart no matter what beauty they cloak it in.

Edited January 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Another lovely toy to get into with Mom, who is not a Tolkien fan but of fairy tales, I will go dig out my Bettleheim and Campbell..wonder if Provo...or was it Orem that had Tolkien meet Jung figuratively speaking 30 years ago in their library as I delayed its shelving long enough to introduce them..or rather allow the author to let them reintroduce themselves to me...advantages of working there...but so mundane then, not so much so tonight...windy night, snapping ice off the wall on their way to fossilising, stalactites hanging on and dropping off my roof in threatening enlighting and even dangerously penetrating waves of wind and water fused. And i am losing my chance to find out what it would be like to be encased in ice, beautiful ice, solid quivering liquid ice that was so stunning to look at i would forget what i wanted to see beyond it and then there was the distraction of the ice in one's hand...very sensual to curve around following a shape and move across it on a thin film of water that seems more akin to the ice, making me image that in a moment my hands would be impossibly trapped. Then there was a hooked piece that looked like it had been frozen in a moment's glance one part hanging back, less anxious to give up freedom even to become beauty. It regained it's freedom soon enough when I couldn't resist drawing my finger along its edge that was about as mythical a shape one could find here, myth dripped into dank mundane as just the slight heat of my finger tips were warm enough to break the bonds and bring the marvellous crystallisation to an end, doubt if the year will be could and wet enough again to really turn me into the Snow Queen. I would have to but some major gear to go with that role.

Don't need Books of Mormon to tread fairie lands.

[Nathair/|\]

I'm one who takes myths and faerie tales more seriously than most. I even have at least one pixie that likes to hide stuff in my house. The Book of Mormon feels too much of the seen world for me to think of it as part of the unseen.

[Rob Osborn]

To attempt to redefine what is clearly stated seems to purposely strain at reality in an effort to make what is real unreal, what is true to be false all in the vain effort to satisfy the disbelief of the individual. I find it arrogant to attempt to then use such an ambiguous label as "faerie" to describe how "many LDS read the book without realizing it". What is the Book of Mormon - it is a book of scripture and is read as a book of scripture by those who commit themselves be being disciples of Jesus Christ. When it stands so clearly before one's eyes and then we purposely blind ourselves to satisfy the finite understanding of the individual only results in a perilous journey into a life devoid of faith and without direction and willingly blown about by the doctrines of men.

I completely agree. I would add- we really have only two options, either we discount the entire tale as a fraud and walk away from everything that is "Mormon", or, we believe it to be exactly what it is said to be- an actual account of real historical significance upon which all our beliefs as Mormons are built upon and which we "actually" hold dear within our hearts.

[canard78]

I completely agree. I would add- we really have only two options, either we discount the entire tale as a fraud and walk away from everything that is "Mormon", or, we believe it to be exactly what it is said to be- an actual account of real historical significance upon which all our beliefs as Mormons are built upon and which we "actually" hold dear within our hearts.

An unnecessary dichotomy. To force members into that 'sudden death' situation is a shame. It means that by finding one perceived 'bulls eye' from the critics people will feel they have to walk away. That's tragic. A person's faith can be based on the spiritual witness that the book is of God and from the Alma 32 evidence of the principles in it. It could be inspired 'fiction' and still inspiring. Have a look at D&C 19:6-7. It's doctrine that God sometimes says one thing to get an effect or response, but the reality is something else.

The Book of Mormon needs to be taught from the top as literal for it to have impact and gain interest. As people's explore its origins I can see how and why they might reach a different conclusion about its origins. I hope there is a historical Nephi and Alma. But I've decided I don't need there to be. I've recognised that the 'words' work. It would still work as an inspired 'faerie tale.'

Book of Abraham... probably not a literal translation (possibly, but probably not in my mind). The papyrus could have been a muse for direct revelation.

What about Book of Moses? That has no literal document and source and was just 'funneled' into Joseph's mind as far as I can tell.

Could BoA and BoM be a useful parable and still work? Can those two only work for you if they are 'documentary?'

[Rob Osborn]

An unnecessary dichotomy. To force members into that 'sudden death' situation is a shame. It means that by finding one perceived 'bulls eye' from the critics people will feel they have to walk away. That's tragic. A person's faith can be based on the spiritual witness that the book is of God and from the Alma 32 evidence of the principles in it. It could be inspired 'fiction' and still inspiring. Have a look at D&C 19:6-7. It's doctrine that God sometimes says one thing to get an effect or response, but the reality is something else.

The Book of Mormon needs to be taught from the top as literal for it to have impact and gain interest. As people's explore its origins I can see how and why they might reach a different conclusion about its origins. I hope there is a historical Nephi and Alma. But I've decided I don't need there to be. I've recognised that the 'words' work. It would still work as an inspired 'faerie tale.'

Book of Abraham... probably not a literal translation (possibly, but probably not in my mind). The papyrus could have been a muse for direct revelation.

What about Book of Moses? That has no literal document and source and was just 'funneled' into Joseph's mind as far as I can tell.

Could BoA and BoM be a useful parable and still work? Can those two only work for you if they are 'documentary?'

Placing the Book of Mormon intoan "inspired fiction" category defeats the entire purpose of the books truths. The book centers around Jesus Christ's appearance to the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. How they arrived in America is very much essential as a witness as Christ himself. If Lehi, Nephi, Laman And Lemual are just ficticious, then so must Christ also be ficticious. But, if we believe Jesus Christ visited America as the book states, then Lehi and his descendants were real historical characters who really did migrate to the Americas via ship in ancient times from the holy land.

[canard78]

Placing the Book of Mormon intoan "inspired fiction" category defeats the entire purpose of the books truths. The book centers around Jesus Christ's appearance to the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. How they arrived in America is very much essential as a witness as Christ himself. If Lehi, Nephi, Laman And Lemual are just ficticious, then so must Christ also be ficticious. But, if we believe Jesus Christ visited America as the book states, then Lehi and his descendants were real historical characters who really did migrate to the Americas via ship in ancient times from the holy land.

Do you mean that if the Book of Mormon is fiction then Christ doesn't exist? Or do you mean that if the Book of Mormon is fiction then the account of him visiting America is fiction?

I would agree with the second. But not the first. Christ's atonement is not dependent on the Book of Mormon being historically accurate.

[glitterNgold]

This is my very first post!

Can the Book of Mormon be read as a fairy story?

Definitely!

How can we tell what genre the scriptures were intended to be?

I guess we just compare it to other works.

If we read the Book of Mormon as a fairy story, what does that tell us about the geography, characters, and historical events described in the book?

Maybe we can imagine that the story of Isabel was embellished and that she really was victimized by Corianton. We could read that story as if it were a fairy tale where she is the hero in the story.

Isabel:

I like it!

[Rob Osborn]

Do you mean that if the Book of Mormon is fiction then Christ doesn't exist? Or do you mean that if the Book of Mormon is fiction then the account of him visiting America is fiction?

I would agree with the second. But not the first. Christ's atonement is not dependent on the Book of Mormon being historically accurate.

I meant it in the sense that if one believes the nephites were ficticious, then so must Christs com8ng to them must also be ficticious. If that is the case, Joseph Smith is a fraud and the LDS church is a fraud! There is so much riding on the fact that the BoM is a true historical account.

[glitterNgold]

I meant it in the sense that if one believes the nephites were ficticious, then so must Christs com8ng to them must also be ficticious. If that is the case, Joseph Smith is a fraud and the LDS church is a fraud! There is so much riding on the fact that the BoM is a true historical account.

I disagree

[The Nehor]

It fails on the account that Sherem, Nehor, Korihor, Ammoron, and many others do not take the magic seriously.

The Book of Mormon does not have the taste of Faerie. Too many structured arguments, people explaining the "magic", and too much interest in letters and preaching. Faerie is otherworldly. While the Book of Mormon has teachings about other worlds it is too practical and banal to be Faerie. The story of Noah comes closer. The Torah has a bit but then it fails when it switches to a lawbook. Apocalypses are as close as most western religion comes. Mahonri's is mostly cut out of the text. Nephi's is a recitation of fact with little of the otherworldly imagery John and Daniel favored.

Nope, no faerie story in the Book of Mormon. If there were getting people to read it would be less like pulling teeth.

[Rob Osborn]

I disagree

Please explain

[glitterNgold]

Hi Rob,

I would like to believe that Jesus might visit anyone in this world, despite any or all parts of the Book of Mormon being fiction.

Joseph Smith could have translated a work like Homers. Fiction? Sure. Can we learn from it? You bet!

Please note that I'm not saying I think it's all fiction but rather providing an argument against your comment.

[volgadon]

As I suggested, it wouldn't hurt to compare specific examples.

[Rob Osborn]

Hi Rob,

I would like to believe that Jesus might visit anyone in this world, despite any or all parts of the Book of Mormon being fiction.

Joseph Smith could have translated a work like Homers. Fiction? Sure. Can we learn from it? You bet!

Please note that I'm not saying I think it's all fiction but rather providing an argument against your comment.

So why provide an argument at all? There is no other book like the BoM on this planet. The basis for one of the fastest growing religions in the world stake their claim that the BoM is a n actual historical record. So why provide an argument? Just curious.

[canard78]

I meant it in the sense that if one believes the nephites were ficticious, then so must Christs com8ng to them must also be ficticious. If that is the case, Joseph Smith is a fraud and the LDS church is a fraud! There is so much riding on the fact that the BoM is a true historical account.

Joseph Smith is only a fraud if he intentionally and knowingly made it up. Joseph couldn't read 'reformed Egyptian.' In fact, if this is really the Anthon Transcript then no-one can read it:

My point is that the Book of Mormon isn't a literal translation in the "Google translate" sense of the word. Joseph isn't a 'reformed Egyptian' expert who sat with the characters in front of him and painstakingly translated them as accurately as possible. Joseph often dictated the Book of Mormon with the plates hidden somewhere else. He put his seer stone and face in a hat and dictated the words. The words he dictated were brilliant, inspired, inspiring.

There might still have been literal Gold Plates. There might have been a literal Nephi and a literal Mormon who wrote the characters first which Joseph literally and perfectly translated into English. But I don't 'need' there to be in order for the words to still be 'of God.' It's not a 'sudden death' condition I place on the book.

I'm not dismissing the Book of Mormon's historicity. I'm simply observing that the manner of its publication means it doesn't have to be a literal historical translation to be valuable. I find value in the English, dictated words. I have a testimony the principles in the book are true and of God. But neither of those exclude the possibility that they are figurative - even faerie - stories.

In summary, if Joseph knowingly fabricated the whole thing (visions, angels, plates) then I agree it's an unpleasant fraud. But he could have had all those experiences and manifestations (or believed he had) and been genuine, even though they didn't happen in a literal, tangible sense.

I realise some may feel that Elder Holland would disagree with my conclusion:

A good deal has been said about the authorship—and, therefore, the divine origins—of the Book of Mormon. But then there has always been a lot said about it ever since it first rolled off the old E. B. Grandin press in downtown Palmyra, New York, on the 26th of March, 1830.

Let me quote a very powerful comment from President Ezra Taft Benson, who said, “The Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it.

“Yes, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion—the keystone of our testimony, the keystone of our doctrine, and the keystone in the witness of our Lord and Savior” (A Witness and a Warning, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1988, p. 19).

To hear someone so remarkable say something so tremendously bold, so overwhelming in its implications, that everything in the Church—everything—rises or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and, by implication, the Prophet Joseph Smith’s account of how it came forth, can be a little breathtaking. It sounds like a “sudden death” proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward.

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1995/06/true-or-false?lang=eng

It's a shame that the over-application of the above statement and position could cause people to abandon the blessings on the gospel when the find (or think they have found) inconsistencies in the the history and origins. I don't think it's necessary. Some people find one mistake or misrepresentation in the history and throw away the whole thing.

If we judge things by their fruit, then the root doesn't matter.

[canard78]

In part as a counter to my previous post.

I would suggest that part of the reason why Old World Book of Mormon seems so grounded in reality and logical is that we have a known starting point for the journey.

When I watch this video I find it very compelling evidence that the journey is not being invented by Joseph Smith.

If we had a definitive starting point for Lehi's landing point or, better still, a definitive Zarahemla, it's likely that we would get similarly compelling geographic evidence in the 'real world' Alma and co lived in. As greater minds than mine have pointed out, we need to look in the right place for the right things. Is the New World only 'Faerie' because we don't know for certain where to start looking.

[glitterNgold]

Thanks canard. Well done.