On Fairy Stories And The Book Of Mormon

[canard78]

I think this is a fantastic summary. I think there are probably a few more options that one could write with respect to your 1, 2, 3 list.

It's interesting to me that one of the key tenets of our religion that is absent from the temple recommend questions is any kind of statement of belief regarding the Book of Mormon. I think church members reflect many viewpoints regarding the historicity and translation of the Book of Mormon. While we are apparently free to believe differently in that regard, the underlying faith must be in Joseph's prophetic call to usher in the restoration.

Of course, I also think one would have a tough time fully participating in our LDS faith if they did not --at a minimum-- see some echoes of the divine within the pages of the Book of Mormon.

I agree that several more points and scenarios could be added to the list. I intentionally kept it to those three because they reflect the traditional view of how the Book came into existence.

I think it's a very good point that a belief in the historical accuracy of the scripture books (Book of Mormon/Book of Abraham/Book of Moses/JST/PoG) are not a standard required.

Instead it's a willingness to embrace the reality of restored gospel through Joseph and since and a willingness to live the principles taught through it.

[glitterNgold]

I know active members in good standing who believe the entire book to be fiction. They do just fine.

[cdowis]

"Do you support the prophet and the General Authorities?"

"cough....cough...ahh..."

"I will assume that is a 'yes'. Here is your recommend."

For those "members in good standing", ask them if JS and the witnesses were telling the complete truth about the BOM. If you question them closely, you will discover that if BOM is not historical, then JS and the witnesses were liars and deceivers.... but they were "sincere".

They may accept the church as it is today, but the history, the roots of the founding of the church, is rotten, based on a lie. It is merely another great Christian church.

Edited January 16, 2013 by cdowis

[rockpond]

"Do you support the prophet and the General Authorities?"

"cough....cough...ahh..."

"I will assume that is a 'yes'. Here is your recommend."

For those "members in good standing", ask them if JS and the witnesses were telling the complete truth about the BOM. If you question them closely, you will discover that if BOM is not historical, then JS and the witnesses were liars and deceivers.... but they were "sincere".

They may accept the church as it is today, but the history, the roots of the founding of the church, is rotten, based on a lie. It is merely another great Christian church.

I'm not sure I would go that far but a lot of it depends on how you view the word "historical" in relation to the Book of Mormon. The Three and the Eight testified of witnessing the plates. The Three additionally testified that the plates contain a record of the Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites.

Does that mean that the plates have to be an historical artifact? I would say yes. Does it mean that the Book of Mormon can't be largely allegorical? I would say no. I don't read anything in the Witness statements that tells me it must be the historical record of actual people who actually lived on this continent.

That said, I want to be clear in my testimony of the Book of Mormon. I believe that it is a witness of Christ, that it contains the word of God, and that it is an integral piece of the restored gospel. I have not formed a solid opinion on the historicity but that is not really critical in my testimony.

[glitterNgold]

Cdowis,

Let them be. Live your life and stop worrying about what other people think. Doing so will lead you to peace.

Peace,

GNG

[Kevin Christensen]

I've talked about the possibilities for a non-historical reading of the Book of Mormon elsewhere. "Paradigms Crossed" in FRRBM 7/2, and "On Wagging the Dog" in Sunstone. Alma 32 does leave it to his listeners to decide on what portion of the word they want to start with, granting that if they can no more than desire to believe, they can use whatever portion of the word they can handle. As an individual option, I think that's fine. As a community choice, I think it would be suicidal.

All religious communities share in some measure the different kinds of core experience,

but once we get to the key historical events that define and bind communities, we

start to see separation. Mythic patterns may point to universals, but a shared history

makes particular affirmations and concrete demands. Richard Bushman has observed

that what makes us Mormons is not philosophy, but what we believe happened to real

people. “Is not this real?” Alma asks (Alma 32:35). Those who say “no” aren’t bound in

the same way as those who say “yes.”

From my "On Wagging the God", toward the end here:

https://www.sunstone...s/132 02-09.pdf

Another aspect I have noticed that is that those who argue for the benefits, preference or legitimacy of reading the Book of Mormon as myth tend to spend most their efforts on self-justification for the choice, rather then demonstration of the benefit. The most ambitious attempt I have seen is Mark Thomas' Digging in Cumorah. I had a review of that in progress when I had a disk crash that changed my plans. My title was "Undermining Cumorah."

I think Blake Ostler did make a good and useful argument in his 1987 "Expansion" essay. His discussion of translation is still very valuable. But I have also noticed that Ostler's reasons for arguing that this or that passage was a midrashic expansion were usually based on the Book of Mormon being too Christian before Christ. Margaret Barker's The Older Testament was published in 1987. I see her work as demonstrating that what Ostler and other critics claimed was anachronistic Christianity, can also be seen as unexpectedly authentic First Temple Theology. When she read the Book of Mormon in 2004, she told me "I was amazed at how much I recognized."

And that leads to another issue. Once an individual decides that the Book of Mormon is a 19th Century fiction, they tend to stop paying attention to the ongoing research. Even Grant Hardy's excellent book on Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide, is sprinkled with a few comments offering blanket dismissals regarding a lack of proof that fall far short of exploring what actually counts as evidence. And Hardy does actually believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. It's the combination of his sense of his professionalism and his focus, rather than perception and demonstration, that underlies his comments. But having read and benefited from his insights there, does not mean I won't benefit from reading Gardner and Clark and Sorenson and Wright, and others on the Mesoamerican side.

It has been my experience that those who argue against the historicity of the Book of Mormon do not represent the best informed thinking on the topic. If they may seem to hold the upper hand at a given moment in time, it happens that time and progress in knowledge change the playing field. Those who leave the game tend to fall behind. The Roberts Study and Tom Ferguson's arguments show how this works. Even Micheal Coe's arguments have fallen woefully behind. Listening to Coe and John Dehlin talk about the lack of Mesoamerican evidence for iron arrow heads and brass helmets, was painful, not because the evidence shattered my faith, but because they should have known that the Book of Mormon never mentions or implies iron arrowheads or brass helmets. I had a personal experience with a friend in California who I met at the SLC Sunstone in 2002. I spotted her walking down a hall, and called her name. She asked what I was doing there, and I help up a copy of the recently published Paradigms Crossed. She said, "Before you say anything, the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth century fiction, and nothing you say will ever change my mind. I never read anything from FARMS. It makes me mad." Rather taken aback, I asked if my essay on NDE research and the Book of Mormon had made her mad. She admitted that it hadn't but still left in a huff, not wanting to have to explain examples that did not fit her paradigm. Some years before, she had admitted to our book group that she had never read the Book of Mormon. It is one of the realities of the human condition that people do not become experts in fields in which they do not participate. We're all different, and that it fine. But difference ought to lead to humility, rather than pride. No one is an expert on everything.

One of my favorite essays on the Book of Mormon is Tod R. Harris, "The Journey of the Hero: Archetypes of Earthly Adventure and Spiritual Passage in 1 Nephi." It's a detailed study of 1 Nephi in light of Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces. He concludes:

"From the discussion presented, it would seem that further exploration into the mythic dimension of the Book of Mormon has the potential to illuminate the text afresh, while opening another avenue for experiencing its power and universality."

http://maxwellinstit...um=2&id=146

I've love to see more of this kind of thing. For another, Collen Harrison wrote He Did Deliver Me From Bondage, using the Book of Mormon to illuminate the 12 Steps of Addiction recovery. There is nothing in her book about historicity, but a great deal that argues for immediate real relevance and utility for healing.

William Blake, in his marginal notes to a book responding to Tom Paine's attacks on the Bible, commented that as far as he was concerned, the truth of the stories in the Bible did not depend on their historicity, but their immediate relevance as useful ensamples, demonstrating both virtue and vice. But in using characters such as the Prodigal Son, or Job, or King Lear, or Robin Hood, or Harry Potter or Frodo Baggins as an archetypal example for life, the comparison works best when I'm focused on how their example illuminates what is real. The power of myth comes from how effectively they point to what is real.

I agree with Blake on that. But I also agree with Nephi when he explains that we cannot understand the writings of the Jews if we do not understand the cultural context in which they wrote. And until we set the Book of Mormon writings into a the cultural context that it claims for itself, we won't understand the text as the authors wrote it, and won't know what difference it makes. The whole business of "skin of blackness" is a good example of that. It is historicity, and taking the ancient context seriously that demonstrates the symbolic sense of the language, and undercuts the charge that such language represents 19th century prejudice.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited January 16, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[cdowis]

glitterNgold,

Thanks for your counsel, but I am merely making an observation that I find it to be a contradiction which is difficult, if not impossible, to resolve.

I personally don't care what anyone believes, but I will will make a comment when someone is in the "garbage zone".

Chill out, man.

Edited January 16, 2013 by cdowis

[cdowis]

All religious communities share in some measure the different kinds of core experience,

but once we get to the key historical events that define and bind communities, we

start to see separation. Mythic patterns may point to universals, but a shared history

makes particular affirmations and concrete demands. Richard Bushman has observed

that what makes us Mormons is not philosophy, but what we believe happened to real

people. “Is not this real?” Alma asks (Alma 32:35). Those who say “no” aren’t bound in

the same way as those who say “yes.”

Can you translate into English?

On second thought, nevermind......

[Rob Osborn]

Part of accepting the "church" is at least acknowledging that the church believes the BoM to be a real historical record. How one comes to their own personal conversion to the reality of the BoM depends upon their own level of faith and belief. I dont think anyone questions the testimony of any member concerning Christ during that conversion process. However, there are some basic elements that members need to agree upon concerning the BoM. I list them in order of importance-

1. Jesus Christ visited the ancient inhabitants of the Americas as recorded in the BoM

2. Ancient prophets such as "Moroni" were/are real literal historical figures just as the BoM states

3. Joseph Smith had real historical plates in his possession

4. Joseph Smith translated those historical records into what we now call the BoM

5. The church officially claims that the BoM is a real historical record of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and their dealings with God and His Son.

Members should not dispute these claims in my opinion. We all should be in unity on those 5 basic points. When we teach others about the church and its beliefs we should not stray from those core beliefs concerning the uniqueness but truthfulness of our church beliefs. If we cant agree on any of them then we personally should pray for sincere guidance to have a sincere testimony of those basic beliefs.

[rockpond]

Part of accepting the "church" is at least acknowledging that the church believes the BoM to be a real historical record. How one comes to their own personal conversion to the reality of the BoM depends upon their own level of faith and belief. I dont think anyone questions the testimony of any member concerning Christ during that conversion process. However, there are some basic elements that members need to agree upon concerning the BoM. I list them in order of importance-

1. Jesus Christ visited the ancient inhabitants of the Americas as recorded in the BoM

2. Ancient prophets such as "Moroni" were/are real literal historical figures just as the BoM states

3. Joseph Smith had real historical plates in his possession

4. Joseph Smith translated those historical records into what we now call the BoM

5. The church officially claims that the BoM is a real historical record of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and their dealings with God and His Son.

Members should not dispute these claims in my opinion. We all should be in unity on those 5 basic points. When we teach others about the church and its beliefs we should not stray from those core beliefs concerning the uniqueness but truthfulness of our church beliefs. If we cant agree on any of them then we personally should pray for sincere guidance to have a sincere testimony of those basic beliefs.

Joseph Smith said: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

Given that statement, reiterated by by Elder Christofferson in April 2012 Gen Con, I don't see the "need" to require unity of belief among members on all of your points.

For example, while I believe that Joseph Smith had historical plates in his possession and used them to reveal the Book of Mormon, I don't see anything in the text of the Book of Mormon that requires a belief that it is a "real historical record of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas". Does the Church officially claim that? Yeah, probably. Is it a "fundamental principle of our religion"? Ummm, I'd have to go with no.

And I think you make a good point about the conversion process. Everyone has different levels of faith and belief in different things. For example, I'd say that my testimony of the power of the priesthood (restored through Joseph Smith) is stronger than my belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Though it's important to recognize that I expect both of those beliefs to continue to grow and develop.

[cdowis]

OK, so that means that Christ did not appear to the Americas, that there is no witnesses to His resurrection, and "Another witness for Christ" is a deception.

Got it! No hay problema.

Just curious, did you read the Introduction to the BOM?

Edited January 16, 2013 by cdowis

[rockpond]

OK, so that means that Christ did not appear to the Americas, that there is no witnesses to His resurrection, and "Another witness for Christ" is a deception.

Got it! No hay problema.

Just curious, did you read the Introduction to the BOM?

Was this directed toward me? Because I didn't say that. I'm simply saying that my personal testimony does not include the specificity of the location. And I don't think that we should require such a belief as the previous poster, Rob Osborn, postulated (at least that's how I understood his comments).

I have read the introduction to the Book of Mormon. Quite a few times, actually. I recognize that it indicates the location to be the Americas. But I don't think the Introduction has been put forth as some type of revealed truth. And its recent word change seems to support the conclusion that it is more of an explanatory introduction reflecting our best understanding rather than a divine decree.

[Nevo]

I think Blake Ostler did make a good and useful argument in his 1987 "Expansion" essay. His discussion of translation is still very valuable. But I have also noticed that Ostler's reasons for arguing that this or that passage was a midrashic expansion were usually based on the Book of Mormon being too Christian before Christ. Margaret Barker's The Older Testament was published in 1987. I see her work as demonstrating that what Ostler and other critics claimed was anachronistic Christianity, can also be seen as unexpectedly authentic First Temple Theology.

First of all, thanks for your thoughtful, measured comments on the historicity issue.

I know you and Brant both cite Margaret Barker's work as demonstrating that what at first glance appears to be anachronistic Christianity in the Book of Mormon is actually "authentic First Temple Theology" (per Barker's reconstruction). I've made no secret of the fact that I am highly skeptical of this claim (and of Barker's methodology and conclusions generally). But I respect you and Brant enough to consider that I may be wrong.

What books/articles you have found most useful for understanding the pre-Christian "Christianity" (messianism) of the Book of Mormon. Is The Older Testament the best place to start? Or Temple Theology?

I have read parts of The Great Angel, the Risen Lord, and The Great High Priest—and, many years ago, your "Paradigms Regained" paper—so I already have some inkling of Barker's understanding of pre-exilic Israelite religion (Josiah was bad, Asherah-worship was good, the high priest was seen as a divine figure, the Day of Atonement ritual healed creation, etc). But I guess I'd like to see what her understanding is based on. I'm not inclined to simply take her word on things (well, Barker says that ancient Israelites believed x, therefore they believed x).

[Kevin Christensen]

Nevo,

You are welcome.

The first thing I read on pre-Christian Christianity in the Book of Mormon was James Charlesworth's essay for the 1978 Truman Madsen collection Reflections on Mormonism.

http://rsc.byu.edu/a...-and-book-mormo

I started on Barker with The Great Angel in 1999. One of the things I still love about the Great Angel is how exhaustively and systematically she works through available evidence, starting with a question raised by the existence of Christianity, and then moving the Old Testament, Jewish writings, Philo, early Christian writings, gnostic writings, and then coming back to the New Testament after having established a broadly based context for reading. That strikes me as a sound method. I started reading Barker as a Nibleyophile, and that preparation was helpful in approaching her sources. The Older Testament does establish the foundation for her later work, though I also notice that her most recent book, The Mother of the Lord, does quite a lot to extend and strengthen those foundations. I'm particularly impressed by her 30+ pages analyzing Jeremiah. She provides lots of footnotes, lots of quotation of sources, and shows an excellent grasp of what is going in the broad arena of scholarship. And she has a knack for making observations that connect tiny details to larger movements. For instance, she notes that 1 Enoch is a repository of high priestly traditions, containing visions set in the Holy of Holies. She points out that the sacred calendar in Deuteronomy 16 does not include a Day of Atonement.

I spent two years working on Paradigms Regained, and still feel like I just scratched the surface. My reason for comparing her work with the Book of Mormon, and later, looking in Jeremiah, and reading into non-LDS scholars on Josiah, the Deuteronomists, 1 Enoch, and what was happening around 600 BCE was not a matter of simply taking her word for it, but testing what she said to the extent that I can with the resources I have between my ears. Comparing what she sees in the artifacts or items or texts that, say Dever or Friedman has commented on, can be most interesting.

She has a grasp of the Big Picture, and does not live or think in isolation. See for instance her Reflections on Biblical Studies in the 20th Century.

http://www.margaretb...icalStudies.pdf

For the books, I think The Older Testament, The Great Angel, and the Mother of the Lord are all essential. Some prefer Temple Themes in Christian Worship. That is the book that caused the Archbishop of Canterbury to award her a Doctorate. Though, as with Nibley, the books extend from one another and reflect backward into one another. I recommend the little hundred page Temple Theology: An Introduction as the best introduction, but for the range of details, arguments, sources and evidence, the big books are essential.

For the papers. I like and recommend everything on her website.

http://www.margaretb...icalStudies.pdf

For LDS readers, I often suggest starting with "Text and Context" and comparing that essay on the transmission of the Hebrew scripture with 1 Nephi 13. She recognizes that much of her work involves the restoration of plain and precious things that have been lost.

For an essay that is particularly personal and intimate, as a way to understand Margaret herself, try Now I See.

http://www.margaretb...ers/NowIsee.pdf

Of course, I have to mention that Bill Hamblin has recently taken issue with her views on Josiah in his Vindicating Josiah essay. I like and respect Bill's work, but I see it differently. We can disagree on that point and still agree more than we disagree. And there is also Alyson Von Feldt's essay looking closer at His Secret is With the Righteous: Instructional Wisdom in the Book of Mormon, which adds considerable depth to what I saw.

http://maxwellinstit...=9&chapterID=74

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited January 16, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[rockpond]

@ Kevin Christensen

Thank you for taking the time to provide all that great information on additional study materials for us. I will get reading.

[canard78]

@ Kevin Christensen

Thank you for taking the time to provide all that great information on additional study materials for us. I will get reading.

Seconded. Once Kevin gets involved in a thread I usually have little else to say and quit griping soon after.

[cdowis]

Was this directed toward me? Because I didn't say that. I'm simply saying that my personal testimony does not include the specificity of the location.

I understood that the drift of our discussion was whether the BOM was "historical", meaning non-fiction as opposed to fictional. Not referring to any particular location other than the western hemisphere.

And I don't think that we should require such a belief as the previous poster, Rob Osborn, postulated (at least that's how I understood his comments).

I have read the introduction to the Book of Mormon. Quite a few times, actually. I recognize that it indicates the location to be the Americas. But I don't think the Introduction has been put forth as some type of revealed truth. And its recent word change seems to support the conclusion that it is more of an explanatory introduction reflecting our best understanding rather than a divine decree.

The word change was merely a clarification for those who got their panties in a wad over the word "principle" without bothering to look it up in the dictionary.

Edited January 17, 2013 by cdowis

[volgadon]

http://www.jewishreviewofbooks.com/publications/detail/why-there-is-no-jewish-narnia

I actually disagree with a lot of the author's opinions- as one example, Janusz Korchak wrote several books of juvenile fantasy, and Weingrad significantly overstates anti-mythological trends- but he does raise some points applicable here.

"The experience of wonder, of joy and delight on the part of the reader, has long been recognized as one of the defining characteristics of the genre. This wonder is connected with a world, with a place of magic, strangeness, danger, and charm; and whether it is called Perelandra, Earthsea, Amber, or Oz, this world must be a truly alien place. As Ursula K. Leguin says: “The point about Elfland is that you are not at home there. It’s not Poughkeepsie.” "

The Book of Mormon's promised land is eminently this-worldly. It operates on the same principles as the corrupted land they left behind, something I actually want to write on later. The chief difference (and even here it is subtle) is that this renewed covenantal sacralisation takes place in a land across the sea to which only God can grant access. Calling that Faerie is a stretch. The land- through the lens of covenant and purity- declares God's presence in and rule over the world.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I just finished a reread of The World of the Jaredites by Nibs, and I particularly loved a few of his closing lines:

On the other side of the picture we have the Lord himself speaking "in all humility" (what a commentary on humility!) to any man who is ready to receive him. The Jaredites were not Israelites or even the seed of Abraham: they were simply human beings, apparently a nondescript body of no particular racial affinity. Time and place cease to exist in this story, for many men of whom we have no record spoke face to face with the Lord long before he came to fulfil his earthly mission. This remarkable indifference to any quality but faith is carried in Ether even into the next world, where we learn that the Lord has prepared "among the mansions of [his] Father" a house for man (Ether 12:32), where the faithful of this earth shall be at home among the faithful of other worlds. Thus the bonds of time and place are completely dissolved in Moroni's theology, and the same promises and warnings that hung over the world of the Jaredites are handed on to our own world.

In closing let me point out that it is in the Book of Mormon, specifically in Ether, that we read about things beyond the veil, of other worlds than this -- many mansions, among which the faithful of this world inherit but one -- and of men who talk with Jesus Christ face to face in visions. All this I find published in 1830, when Joseph Smith was but twenty-four years old, and the Church was not yet organized. Yet some of my intellectual friends are even now knocking themselves out to show that all such ideas were the product of Joseph Smith's later thinking, and that the idea of anything like his first vision was first worked out by a committee in Nauvoo in 1843. There is nothing like the story of the Jaredites to show us that the gospel is as timeless as it is true.

If the historical part of the book of Ether were to be put forth to the world as the translation of some text found, let us say, in the Cave of the Thousand Buddhas, the experts on early Asia might think it a work of fiction but would find nothing cultural in it, barring the strange proper names, to make them doubt that it reflected a genuine ancient culture. If you want to be very cautious, you might say there is very little in it that would annoy the expert. But bearing in mind that Asiatic studies are still in embryo [Nibs was writing in the early '50s], and considering the condition under which this work was published, and the fabulously remote probability of the writer's getting anything right at all, I think no further credentials are necessary to establish the authenticity of the book, which repeatedly claims to be reporting the ways of very early Asiatics.

This is why I love the Book of Ether in particular. It's dark and mysterious and numinous, with the twilight melancholy of a mountain appearing on the misty horizon of the steppes. It's a universal religion of dying and rising Gods: all people, all places, all tribes and families are tied to each other in an infinite At-One-Ment.

Edited February 17, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith