On Fairy Stories And The Book Of Mormon

[Storm Rider]

I believe attaining salvation is not a one-size-fits all process. People are moved (motivated, inspired) by different things. As a recently returned missionary, I was deeply moved by the movie Legacy. I watched it many times on the big screen in the JSM building. It was a catalyst for many other good decisions I made. There is truth told in the movie Legacy but a lot of it is fictional characters speaking embellished and fictional dialogue.

I can think of many works of fiction that inspired me to be a better person- Hugo, Bronte, ****ens, Hardy, etc

I think you are confusing things which unnecessarily gives the appearance of conflict. I don't think anyone demeans the value of those things or events in life that motivate individuals to do better or to become inspired to be a better individual. However, being inspired to do better does not bring salvation to an individual. Salvation comes solely through Jesus Christ; He is the only intermediary between humanity and God the Father. Many things can inspire us or motivate us to do better, to renew our efforts, and even reveal truths to us; however, that does not obviate the need for Jesus Christ to obtain salvation.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob,

Might you be willing to agree that a little piece is fiction and despite this, the book overall will lead a person to salvation?

For example, the Jaredites carrying bees in enclosed vessels or the stripling warriors? Might a little bit of fiction (very little) destroy the overall power of the book on its followers?

Please note: I'm not saying these are fairytales but just using them as examples.

i guess my brain is wired differently. Reading about the Jaredite journey over the ocean with glowing rocks in their vessels lit by Gods finger is what adds credibility to the realism and the faith required by those ancient real people.

[mapman]

Thanks for the responses, everybody. I agree that the Book of Mormon is generally written in a manner that is more realistic than fairy stories. However, I've been thinking about this over the past few days. I personally believe that the Book of Mormon is an ancient book, but I've come to the (tentative) conclusion that if we are going to be serious about treating it as such we cannot read it like a modern book. Here are some of things that I don't think we have looked closely enough at if we are going to be serious about reading it as an ancient text:

Historical criticism - Royal Skousen and others have done amazing work doing textual criticism on the BoM. There has been some historical criticism by individuals, but as far as I know no one has done an in depth look at the historical sources behind the BoM. What I'm thinking of here is trying to see what can be known, for example, about the authorship and dating of the various sources Mormon used for compiling 4 Nephi. I don't think that we can accurately judge the historical and geographical content of the BoM without doing this. In my opinion, we shouldn't assume that all parts of the book are just as historically accurate (according to modern standards) as other parts.

Mythological - I would like to be absolutely clear about what I am saying here. Saying something is mythological is not the same thing as fictional. Ancient historical accounts often included mythological aspects. For example, I think it is very likely that Lehi and his family would have assumed that the earth was flat in accordance with the cosmology/geography that was commonly assumed in their culture. This of course doesn't mean that Lehi didn't exist, but it might affect how we read the account of their voyage across Ireantum. We also need to think about whether some of the events and characters might be based on archetypes instead of actual events in order to fill out a story someone wanted to tell.

I don't think that the Book of Mormon is a fairy tale because (as others have pointed out) in its finished state abridged by Mormon it doesn't really read like a fairy story. But I do think that various parts of the book could benefit from comparing them to myths, legends, and fairy stories (I think that the Book of Ether could especially benefit from this approach).

Edited January 14, 2013 by mapman

[Nathair/|\]

Rob,

Might you be willing to agree that a little piece is fiction and despite this, the book overall will lead a person to salvation?

For example, the Jaredites carrying bees in enclosed vessels or the stripling warriors? Might a little bit of fiction (very little) destroy the overall power of the book on its followers?

Please note: I'm not saying these are fairytales but just using them as examples.

Didn't Nibley demonstrate back in the 40s that DSRT was a royal bee symbol, not literal honeybees?

[ERayR]

Maybe you should rephrase this comment then if you don't want to answer the CFR. If you are not saying this is something that applies to me, all members and even all of the human family based on doctrine it might be better to change what you're saying. My edits of what I think you might be saying in bold italics and strike through:

I'm very happy for you to say that if you cannot take the Book of Mormon literally, then you ultimately cannot have faith in Jesus Christ. That does not apply to me and unless you can show me where God has revealed this, you can't say it does apply to me and all people. If you are saying it only applies to you and your testimony, no CFR needed. If you are saying it does apply to me, then I am simply asking for references and examples which teaches me this principle (Bro of Jared does not say this). I am 'calling for references' that a BoM historical belief is a requirement for having faith in Jesus Christ and being able to see him face-to-face.

I am not and will not try to prove the BoM to be non-literal. That is neither my intention now objective. I am more than happy if it is historical. I hope it is. Archaeology etc suggests it probably is. But my testimony is not dependent on it being so. I can understand why its historical literalness becomes 'sudden death' for some members. It is not for me. I can continue to have faith in Jesus Christ, Joseph as a prophet and the impact of the words of the Book of Mormon, independent of whether the people in the book are historical or not.

I will not agree to your interpretation of my words. No my post stands OK as worded. If you really insist on a CFR I put forth the Book of Mormon. Read it prayerfully in its entirety.

[ERayR]

Rob,

Might you be willing to agree that a little piece is fiction and despite this, the book overall will lead a person to salvation?

For example, the Jaredites carrying bees in enclosed vessels or the stripling warriors? Might a little bit of fiction (very little) destroy the overall power of the book on its followers?

Please note: I'm not saying these are fairytales but just using them as examples.

While fiction might inspire it will never be able to affect salvation. I don't accept the Jaredites bees or the stippling warriors as fiction. By what evidence do you declare them fiction?

[ERayR]

Thanks for the responses, everybody. I agree that the Book of Mormon is generally written in a manner that is more realistic than fairy stories. However, I've been thinking about this over the past few days. I personally believe that the Book of Mormon is an ancient book, but I've come to the (tentative) conclusion that if we are going to be serious about treating it as such we cannot read it like a modern book. Here are some of things that I don't think we have looked closely enough at if we are going to be serious about reading it as an ancient text:

Historical criticism - Royal Skousen and others have done amazing work doing textual criticism on the BoM. There has been some historical criticism by individuals, but as far as I know no one has done an in depth look at the historical sources behind the BoM. What I'm thinking of here is trying to see what can be known, for example, about the authorship and dating of the various sources Mormon used for compiling 4 Nephi. I don't think that we can accurately judge the historical and geographical content of the BoM without doing this. In my opinion, we shouldn't assume that all parts of the book are just as historically accurate (according to modern standards) as other parts.

Mythological - I would like to be absolutely clear about what I am saying here. Saying something is mythological is not the same thing as fictional. Ancient historical accounts often included mythological aspects. For example, I think it is very likely that Lehi and his family would have assumed that the earth was flat in accordance with the cosmology/geography that was commonly assumed in their culture. This of course doesn't mean that Lehi didn't exist, but it might affect how we read the account of their voyage across Ireantum. We also need to think about whether some of the events and characters might be based on archetypes instead of actual events in order to fill out a story someone wanted to tell.

I don't think that the Book of Mormon is a fairy tale because (as others have pointed out) in its finished state abridged by Mormon it doesn't really read like a fairy story. But I do think that various parts of the book could benefit from comparing them to myths, legends, and fairy stories (I think that the Book of Ether could especially benefit from this approach).

Please give me references that lead you to believe the culture of Lehi's time believed the world was flat.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

it is very likely that Lehi and his family would have assumed that the earth was flat in accordance with the cosmology/geography that was commonly assumed in their culture.

I will definitely agree that the Book of Mormon is not anachronistically "modern" historiography, and as such we should see it functioning as pretty one-sided in-group/out-group propaganda at times, with idealized typologies and tropes, etc. At the same time, it's also important to keep in mind that our modern preconceptions of what ancient people knew may be faulty. For instance, on the assumption that Hipparchus "discovered" the Precession of the equinoxes, we often see diagrams of the ancient cosmology laid out something like this:

or this:

... when in fact Santillana and Dechend showed long ago that the four-sided "flat earth" was simply the square made by the four points of the solstices and equinoxes inscribed within the circle of the ecliptic, with the Axis Mundi being the sacred World-Tree Ladder to the North Star/World Nail supported by the Cosmic Mountain and surrounded by the "waters" Above and Below. (The separation of the Primal Parents Heaven and Earth being the falling-apart of the axes of the celestial equator and the ecliptic; the great "flood" which covered the "earth" being the chaotic time of change from one World-Age to another; the "Golden Calf" of Taurus leading to Moses' Two-Horned Aries, leading to Christ's Pisces, etc.)

Meaning, of course, that we get a cosmology more like:

Sometimes "myths" are technical jargon.

Edited January 14, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[canard78]

Thanks for the responses, everybody. I agree that the Book of Mormon is generally written in a manner that is more realistic than fairy stories. However, I've been thinking about this over the past few days. I personally believe that the Book of Mormon is an ancient book, but I've come to the (tentative) conclusion that if we are going to be serious about treating it as such we cannot read it like a modern book. Here are some of things that I don't think we have looked closely enough at if we are going to be serious about reading it as an ancient text:

Historical criticism - Royal Skousen and others have done amazing work doing textual criticism on the BoM. There has been some historical criticism by individuals, but as far as I know no one has done an in depth look at the historical sources behind the BoM. What I'm thinking of here is trying to see what can be known, for example, about the authorship and dating of the various sources Mormon used for compiling 4 Nephi. I don't think that we can accurately judge the historical and geographical content of the BoM without doing this. In my opinion, we shouldn't assume that all parts of the book are just as historically accurate (according to modern standards) as other parts.

Mythological - I would like to be absolutely clear about what I am saying here. Saying something is mythological is not the same thing as fictional. Ancient historical accounts often included mythological aspects. For example, I think it is very likely that Lehi and his family would have assumed that the earth was flat in accordance with the cosmology/geography that was commonly assumed in their culture. This of course doesn't mean that Lehi didn't exist, but it might affect how we read the account of their voyage across Ireantum. We also need to think about whether some of the events and characters might be based on archetypes instead of actual events in order to fill out a story someone wanted to tell.

I don't think that the Book of Mormon is a fairy tale because (as others have pointed out) in its finished state abridged by Mormon it doesn't really read like a fairy story. But I do think that various parts of the book could benefit from comparing them to myths, legends, and fairy stories (I think that the Book of Ether could especially benefit from this approach).

Do you know, I'd never thought to consider how good a historian Mormon might have been. Interesting thought that some of the Book of Mormon was potentially 'bad history' from Mormon.

This article on Mormon's sources is excellent:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=20&num=2&id=607

[canard78]

I will not agree to your interpretation of my words. No my post stands OK as worded. If you really insist on a CFR I put forth the Book of Mormon. Read it prayerfully in its entirety.

Then the CFR does stand and is not answered. You have made the statement that unless I (and all mankind) believe the Book of Mormon to be a literal, historical document then I (and all mankind) cannot stand face to face with Jesus.

Show me. I've read the Book of Mormon many times. Prayerfully. I started reading when I was seven and continued to every day until I was 10 and in prayer got a testimony that it is true. I retain that testimony. I love the book. I have read it many times since. I carry a copy in my laptop bag to read on the commute to work. I try to follow the principles of the book and consider them to be of divine origins. Show me where it states that unless I believe all of the events depicted in the Book of Mormon are historical facts that I cannot meet/see Jesus.

May I remind you that you have said this about me:

If you have doubts that the BoM is factual you must of necessity doubt the truth claims of the Church that espouses them. If you doubt those claims you are in effect doubting the words of Christ given through his prophets. If you doubt the words of Christ you can not develop faith enough to stand face to face with Jesus Christ on either side of the veil.

You are setting up a dichotomy that doesn't exist.

It's not even accurate in a basic sense. We teach that Jesus will visit the Terrestrial kingdom. We teach that every knee will bow before him. We teach that he will stand at the judgement bar and judge what we have become. We could set that aside and just talk about the Celestial kingdom. I'd still seek a CFR that attaining Celestial kingdom is dependent on a literal historical belief in all of the Book of Mormon events. The link above states that: "To live in the highest part of the celestial kingdom is called exaltation or eternal life. To be able to live in this part of the celestial kingdom, people must have been married in the temple and must have kept the sacred promises they made in the temple."

Please bring me evidence that a literal historical belief in the Book of Mormon is required to stand face to face.

[ERayR]

Then the CFR does stand and is not answered. You have made the statement that unless I (and all mankind) believe the Book of Mormon to be a literal, historical document then I (and all mankind) cannot stand face to face with Jesus.

Show me. I've read the Book of Mormon many times. Prayerfully. I started reading when I was seven and continued to every day until I was 10 and in prayer got a testimony that it is true. I retain that testimony. I love the book. I have read it many times since. I carry a copy in my laptop bag to read on the commute to work. I try to follow the principles of the book and consider them to be of divine origins. Show me where it states that unless I believe all of the events depicted in the Book of Mormon are historical facts that I cannot meet/see Jesus.

May I remind you that you have said this about me:

If you have doubts that the BoM is factual you must of necessity doubt the truth claims of the Church that espouses them. If you doubt those claims you are in effect doubting the words of Christ given through his prophets. If you doubt the words of Christ you can not develop faith enough to stand face to face with Jesus Christ on either side of the veil.

You are setting up a dichotomy that doesn't exist.

It's not even accurate in a basic sense. We teach that Jesus will visit the Terrestrial kingdom. We teach that every knee will bow before him. We teach that he will stand at the judgement bar and judge what we have become. We could set that aside and just talk about the Celestial kingdom. I'd still seek a CFR that attaining Celestial kingdom is dependent on a literal historical belief in all of the Book of Mormon events. The link above states that: "To live in the highest part of the celestial kingdom is called exaltation or eternal life. To be able to live in this part of the celestial kingdom, people must have been married in the temple and must have kept the sacred promises they made in the temple."

Please bring me evidence that a literal historical belief in the Book of Mormon is required to stand face to face.

Read the 3rd chapter of Ether and Moroni 10:4.

[glitterNgold]

Jesus brings salvation despite the Book of Mormon being literal or not. Making the Book of Mormon a fairy tale will not destroy Jesus. We can still be saved through Jesus, even if the dialogue between Jesus and the disciples in America is make believe. Jesus should be stronger than our written word.

[Rob Osborn]

Jesus brings salvation despite the Book of Mormon being literal or not. Making the Book of Mormon a fairy tale will not destroy Jesus. We can still be saved through Jesus, even if the dialogue between Jesus and the disciples in America is make believe. Jesus should be stronger than our written word.

It is true that Jesus brings salvation regardless of the BoM being true. I don't argue that point. i am just saying that if the BoM is a fairy tale, then the entire LDS religion is a fraud.

[volgadon]

Thanks for the responses, everybody. I agree that the Book of Mormon is generally written in a manner that is more realistic than fairy stories. However, I've been thinking about this over the past few days. I personally believe that the Book of Mormon is an ancient book, but I've come to the (tentative) conclusion that if we are going to be serious about treating it as such we cannot read it like a modern book. Here are some of things that I don't think we have looked closely enough at if we are going to be serious about reading it as an ancient text:

Historical criticism - Royal Skousen and others have done amazing work doing textual criticism on the BoM. There has been some historical criticism by individuals, but as far as I know no one has done an in depth look at the historical sources behind the BoM. What I'm thinking of here is trying to see what can be known, for example, about the authorship and dating of the various sources Mormon used for compiling 4 Nephi. I don't think that we can accurately judge the historical and geographical content of the BoM without doing this. In my opinion, we shouldn't assume that all parts of the book are just as historically accurate (according to modern standards) as other parts.

Worthwhile, but tricky. We simply don't possess very much in the way of bibliographical information, and there is a limit to what can be extrapolated. For example, although Josephus includes a large amount of lost material, we at least know about many of his sources, like Nickolas of Damascus, and we can form decent conclusions as to their reliability.

Mythological - I would like to be absolutely clear about what I am saying here. Saying something is mythological is not the same thing as fictional. Ancient historical accounts often included mythological aspects. For example, I think it is very likely that Lehi and his family would have assumed that the earth was flat in accordance with the cosmology/geography that was commonly assumed in their culture. This of course doesn't mean that Lehi didn't exist, but it might affect how we read the account of their voyage across Ireantum. We also need to think about whether some of the events and characters might be based on archetypes instead of actual events in order to fill out a story someone wanted to tell.

You would enjoy, I think, Michael FIshbane's book on biblical and rabbinic myth. I know David Bokovoy has used it several times, as well as heartily recommending the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. I've actually been researching a certain myth which appears in the BoM, but it is a work in progress.

I don't think that the Book of Mormon is a fairy tale because (as others have pointed out) in its finished state abridged by Mormon it doesn't really read like a fairy story. But I do think that various parts of the book could benefit from comparing them to myths, legends, and fairy stories (I think that the Book of Ether could especially benefit from this approach).

I'm all for comparing fairy tales to the Book of Mormon, and seeing where they differ.

[glitterNgold]

It is true that Jesus brings salvation regardless of the BoM being true. I don't argue that point. i am just saying that if the BoM is a fairy tale, then the entire LDS religion is a fraud.

That is really harsh. What a black and white world you live in.

[Rob Osborn]

That is really harsh. What a black and white world you live in.

Why is that harsh? The official statements by our church claim the Book of Mormon is an actual historical record that was miraculously translated by the power of God. If that is not true, then our church is founded upon the greatest fraud. I have no problem with that view. I for one, completely believe the BoM to be just exactly what the church claims it to be. After all, it is for that very reason I am LDS.

[canard78]

Read the 3rd chapter of Ether and Moroni 10:4.

Ok, I've gone and read them. Nowhere in either of those does it state that I must accept the Book of Mormon as historical fact to meet/see Jesus.

When I die, will I see Him?

At the judgement bar, will I see Him?

If I am deemed worthy to go to the Terrestrial kingdom, will see Him?

When my life and choices and who I have become are weighed in the balance, will everything else count for nothing if I have lived my life thinking the BoM might be more allegory than history?

Will reaching the celestial kingdom be dependent on this one make or break thing?

CFR still stands. If Ether 3 or Moroni 10:4 makes such a bold statement of all of the above, please point it out. I'm not seeing it.

[canard78]

Read the 3rd chapter of Ether and Moroni 10:4.

Many non-Mormons claim to have seen Jesus with no knowledge of the BoM, let alone a historical belief in it. Are they all liars?

How about the guy who wrote Return from Tomorrow? He claims to have seen Jesus. Do you presume him to be making it up because he didn't consider the BoM to be factual/historical?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/080078412X/ref=aw_d_detail?pd=1

[canard78]

Why is that harsh? The official statements by our church claim the Book of Mormon is an actual historical record that was miraculously translated by the power of God. If that is not true, then our church is founded upon the greatest fraud. I have no problem with that view. I for one, completely believe the BoM to be just exactly what the church claims it to be. After all, it is for that very reason I am LDS.

I appreciate you putting the word 'I' in there. That's not a problem. Do you recognise that some are LDS, happily so, and don't see it as fully historically accurate? That might not work for you, and that's fine.

[mapman]

Please give me references that lead you to believe the culture of Lehi's time believed the world was flat.

I was thinking of pictures like this:

My understanding is that this worldview was standard for the Ancient Near East in Lehi's day, so I think it is probable that Lehi would have thought of the world as something like this.

[cdowis]

"myth in the BOM"

I recently watched a documentary on the Battle of Shiloah. It was widely reported and believed that the Confederacy lost the battle because of severe losses at the Hornet's Nest, but recent archeology showed that this was a myth. Relatively few Confederate solders were killed there.

I have wondered about the stories in the book of Mosiah, especially about the rather strange account of Limhi's people escaping the Lamanites. Others have brought up several implausible aspects of this escape, so I am wondering if this account has aspects of oral history and myth attached to it.

This possibility does not disturb me in the least, and actually gives the BOM a "human" touch, where Mormon was using the records from the time period, which could relate the "Grand Myth" of their escape.

Just a thought.

[canard78]

"myth in the BOM"

I recently watched a documentary on the Battle of Shiloah. It was widely reported and believed that the Confederacy lost the battle because of severe losses at the Hornet's Nest, but recent archeology showed that this was a myth. Relatively few Confederate solders were killed there.

I have wondered about the stories in the book of Mosiah, especially about the rather strange account of Limhi's people escaping the Lamanites. Others have brought up several implausible aspects of this escape, so I am wondering if this account has aspects of oral history and myth attached to it.

This possibility does not disturb me in the least, and actually gives the BOM a "human" touch, where Mormon was using the records from the time period, which could relate the "Grand Myth" of their escape.

Just a thought.

I agree with this being plausible cdowis. I think a lot of Ether sounds very much like an oral tradition that has been put into writing by the last person who knew it (Ether). I'd be comfortable with the idea that in Ether:

- Not all the Jaredites turned up for the final battle

- There weren't two million of them

- They didn't fight until only the two leaders were left to slug it out

- The losing leader didn't lose his head and roll around struggling until he died

While it 'might' have happened, it doesn't really matter if some of this was part mythology in the nature of the great sagas of ancient battles in Europe etc.

[cinepro]

I have wondered about the stories in the book of Mosiah, especially about the rather strange account of Limhi's people escaping the Lamanites. Others have brought up several implausible aspects of this escape, so I am wondering if this account has aspects of oral history and myth attached to it.

This possibility does not disturb me in the least, and actually gives the BOM a "human" touch, where Mormon was using the records from the time period, which could relate the "Grand Myth" of their escape.

Just a thought.

Generally speaking, when someone says that they believe the Book of Mormon is "historical", they mean that they believe some of it happened for real, but also parts of it didn't, and if you disagree about which parts were which it's only because you lack faith or are just too dang literal.

[canard78]

Generally speaking, when someone says that they believe the Book of Mormon is "historical", they mean that they believe some of it happened for real, but also parts of it didn't, and if you disagree about which parts were which it's only because you lack faith or are just too dang literal.

The concept of 'historical' is obviously subjective on its own. To say the Book of Mormon is historical could cover many things. I imagine most people would consider 'historical' to mean 'what actually happened.'

1/ Joseph Smith had physical Gold Plates. He translated/dictated the words of the Book of Mormon, fully believing that the words he was speaking was a direct translation of characters, even though he (and no-one else) could academically verify it was an accurate translation.

2/ The stories found in the Book of Mormon were written into one collated volume by Mormon, a real person who was a warrior and historian. Some summarised, some he made a direct copy of the original verbatim account that had been made other historians and recorders.

3/ Each of the people featured in the Book of Mormon are actual, literal people and all events depicted in the book happened as recorded. If you were there with a TV camera, you would record it exactly as they wrote it.

The above three statements are not co-dependent. 1 and 2 could be factual and would not be invalidated by 3 being non-factual/literal. Mormon could have unknowingly compiled some factual history, some legends/allegories, some elaborations/exaggerations.

1 is not entirely dependent on 2 and 3. Many might disagree, but Joseph could have received Gold Plates as a 'muse,' dictated under inspiration a powerful story that teaches clear principles about Jesus Christ.

I'm not saying I dismiss 1, 2 or 3... but a member doesn't have to believe 2 and 3 to find value from 1. 2 is important, but not make or break. 3 is the presumption we make... but we're then dependent on a lot of historians writing things accurately.

The History of the Church is an example of well-intended, but sometimes poorly executed, history. Some fantastical/exaggerated stories are included. For example, 'Zelph' http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperDetails/history-1838%E2%80%931856-volume-a-1?p=489

Kenneth Godfrey said "If the history of the church were to be revised today using modern historical standards... We would learn that it is unclear which statements attributed to him derived from his vision, as opposed to being implied or surmised either by him or by others. Nothing in the diaries suggests that the mound itself was discovered by revelation."

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Statements/Nineteenth_century/Joseph_Smith's_lifetime_1829-1840/Joseph_Smith/Zelph

So if WW Phelps can be a bad historian (and his history perpetuated in History of the Church for many generations), could Mormon have been a 'casual' historian too? Or Alma/Helamen/Nephi(3)?

[rockpond]

The concept of 'historical' is obviously subjective on its own. To say the Book of Mormon is historical could cover many things. I imagine most people would consider 'historical' to mean 'what actually happened.'

1/ Joseph Smith had physical Gold Plates. He translated/dictated the words of the Book of Mormon, fully believing that the words he was speaking was a direct translation of characters, even though he (and no-one else) could academically verify it was an accurate translation.

2/ The stories found in the Book of Mormon were written into one collated volume by Mormon, a real person who was a warrior and historian. Some summarised, some he made a direct copy of the original verbatim account that had been made other historians and recorders.

3/ Each of the people featured in the Book of Mormon are actual, literal people and all events depicted in the book happened as recorded. If you were there with a TV camera, you would record it exactly as they wrote it.

The above three statements are not co-dependent. 1 and 2 could be factual and would not be invalidated by 3 being non-factual/literal. Mormon could have unknowingly compiled some factual history, some legends/allegories, some elaborations/exaggerations.

1 is not entirely dependent on 2 and 3. Many might disagree, but Joseph could have received Gold Plates as a 'muse,' dictated under inspiration a powerful story that teaches clear principles about Jesus Christ.

I'm not saying I dismiss 1, 2 or 3... but a member doesn't have to believe 2 and 3 to find value from 1. 2 is important, but not make or break. 3 is the presumption we make... but we're then dependent on a lot of historians writing things accurately.

The History of the Church is an example of well-intended, but sometimes poorly executed, history. Some fantastical/exaggerated stories are included. For example, 'Zelph' http://josephsmithpa...olume-a-1?p=489

Kenneth Godfrey said "If the history of the church were to be revised today using modern historical standards... We would learn that it is unclear which statements attributed to him derived from his vision, as opposed to being implied or surmised either by him or by others. Nothing in the diaries suggests that the mound itself was discovered by revelation."

http://en.fairmormon...eph_Smith/Zelph

So if WW Phelps can be a bad historian (and his history perpetuated in History of the Church for many generations), could Mormon have been a 'casual' historian too? Or Alma/Helamen/Nephi(3)?

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.