Finding "New Spirituality In The Book Of Mormon"

[Louis Midgley]

I am new to message boards. I have engaged in a few conversations, two of which concerned essays I recently published in the new academic journal called Interpreter. I actually joined this message board so that I could observe and contribute to a discussion of an essay I had written that was started by someone upset by something I had written. I now want to see if there might be an interest in discussing two other closely related essays I have published in Interpreter, both of which were posted on the Interpreter Foundation website on the same day. The reason for this is that they are very closely related. Both are found in volume one. I suppose I should post links, but someone could do that for me. The first essay is entitled “Atheist Piety: The Religion of Dogmatic Dubiety” (see pp. 111-143), which is a commentary on a special feature on LDS topics in the flagship atheist magazine in the English speaking world; and the second is a book review of a self-published collection of essay on the Book of Mormon by Robert M. Price (see pp. 145-150). Price started out a Protestant fundamentalist and morphed into what he calls a “Christian atheist.”

To see how Price came to be interested in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, please see my comments on his essay entitled “Joseph Smith: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord” on pp.123-130 of “Atheist Piety.”

This morning Mark Thomas, a close ally of Price, sent a comment on my review of Price’s book to Interpreter, though there is nothing in this comment that addresses my review of Price’s book. Instead, he is angry about the other essay which he does not mention.

Thomas has published a book and many essays on the Book of Mormon, which he treats not as a genuine history of real people but as frontier fiction fashioned by Joseph Smith. He seeks what he calls “the deep spirituality of the book.” This provides the title for this thread.

I believe that I have demonstrated elsewhere that Joseph Smith as seer and prophet is woven together with the question of whether the Book of Mormon is an authentic history. Price and Thomas seem to demonstrate, without intending to do so, that when one severs these crucial links, one ends up necessarily treating Joseph Smith as a liar/lunatic. And something drastic also happens to the prophetic messages found in the book. To see why this is the case with Thomas, please see is essay entitled “Was Joseph Smith for Real? How he Lied, Perhaps Even to Himself,” Free Inquiry 1999-2000, pp. 37-39. (I have provided the address with which this essay can be accessed on p. 137 of “Atheist Piety.”)

The following was sent on 15 Friday 2013 at 2:39 AM:

Comment:

"It seems that the problem with the effort to read the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith's theological speculation is that the non-LDS scholars that Mark Thomas hoped would open a flood of new light on the Book of Mormon fizzled." The Book Mormon Round Table did fizzle even though it was an attempt to find the deep spirituality in the Book of Mormon. It inlcuded Kent Brown, Jack Welch, and many other faithful scholars. It faioed because of serious threats and intimindation by Mormons against me personally. Yes, that's how we win our arguments---we theaten people. Ned Hill, my dean at BYU, had to stop the bullying and persecution. And this from Mormons outside of my line of authority becauise they didn't like the way I was defending the Book of Mormon. I stopped the Round Table becaiuse I do not have the stomoch to offer love and be therathned in retunr by Inquistors with the skill of army interrogators. Contrary to your representations of my writings, I have always believed!

that the Book of Mormon is scripture by definition because ( as the anceint Pharisees defined scripture) it is a book that "defiles the hands" will sacred power. I do not care when the Book of Mormon was written. That has never been a question that interests me. I am interested in the deep spritiuaity of the book. It could have been written last year in China as far as I a care. I read the book as scripture, not to prove that I am right and someone else in wrong. I frankly don't really care when it was written. It makes no differmnce to me. I don't care about hostory at all. History is just boring facts. It's a flaw of mine. But anyone interested in my views on the Book of Mormon would be advised to read what I have written and ignore Dr Midgley's misprepresnations of what I have written and what I believe. He has no idea what I believe. Thank goodness my friend and neighbor, President Monson, has found the inspiration to defend me against the spies, name callers, the Inqu!

isitors and bullies who think that they are defending God by b!

eing cruel to me. I rather like to think that Christ in Luke 6:36 had the last word on that subject ": Be therefore compassionate as your father is compassionate."

Edited February 16, 2013 by Louis Midgley

[volgadon]

I believe that I have demonstrated elsewhere that Joseph Smith as seer and prophet is woven together with the question of whether the Book of Mormon is an authentic history. Price and Thomas seem to demonstrate, without intending to do so, that when one severs these crucial links, one ends up necessarily treating Joseph Smith as a liar/lunatic. And something drastic also happens to the prophetic messages found in the book.

While I more or less agree with your statement, one can still appreciate the spirituality of the book while rejecting its truth claims. Much like someone reading the Zohar without believing in R. Simeon b. Yohai's authorship.

[cdowis]

But you cannot pretend to believe in JS claims, and the claims of the witnesses. The BOM just another inspiring work of fiction -- no restoration, no visions, no priesthood. Just a bunch of fiction and falsehoods about its origin.

[wayfarer]

But you cannot pretend to believe in JS claims, and the claims of the witnesses. The BOM just another inspiring work of fiction -- no restoration, no visions, no priesthood. Just a bunch of fiction and falsehoods about its origin.

Why do we have to go to the "all-or-nothing" false dichotomy? I think Mark Thomas is making it clear that he is a believer, but does not require (nor absolutely deny) that the Book of Mormon is historical.

I can and do have abiding faith that the Gospel was restored through Joseph Smith. I can go so far to say that I have a witness of that restoration, having studied the evidence that much of what we find unique and even a little quirky in the LDS church today was present in the early church. As for visions, Paul had a vision on the road to Damascus. Was it a physical event or some sort of spiritual manifestation? Does it matter? The reality of his vision is unprovable, but we accept it in faith.

As well, Joseph had a vision -- multiple visions. His account of his vision is quite consistent with scriptural accounts of visions. Was it physical or was it spiritual? Did it happen, as Joseph said, "within his mind and heart", or was it, as many today seem to make it out to be, a physical visit of God and Jesus to Joseph? The reality of Joseph Smith's vision is unprovable, as are the provenance details. Yet we accept that it happened in faith. We accept in faith that Joseph Smith was called of god to be a prophet--how that happened in detail is not known.

As for 'priesthood', the structure of LDS priesthood mirrors the authorization approach of the early church rather well. How is a literal understanding of Book of Mormon history relevant in any way to the concept of restoration of the priesthood?

When people disparage the idea that the Book of Mormon is non-historical, I believe they construct a straw-man when they say "just another book of fiction". This denies the divine origin of scripture. When we understand, for example, the history of the Torah and particularly of Deuteronomy, we find that prophets of old received scripture by inspiration to their minds and hearts. For reasons that most people find hard to understand, these received revelations are often given the imprimatur of specific, historical authorship. In the time of Josiah, the priests 'found' a scroll containing a "second telling of the Law", allegedly in the temple. This scroll was written in a structure similar to the then-current priestly language. Josiah, the king, or someone among the priests, made the "claim" that this was a historical account written by Moses. Thus, by having the imprimatur of Moses, the book of Deuteronomy was added to the Torah as being original writings of Moses.

Some have termed this process "pious fraud". And while that sounds harsh, the reality is that much of the new testament was also put together with official imprimatur when many of the texts were not penned by the person whose name is on the cover. We accept these writings as scripture, the "word of god", even if the imprimatur of authorship and historicity is a bit suspect.

If I accept that joseph smith is a prophet, as does Mark Thomas, from what I can tell, then I/we accept that the Book of Mormon is a divinely inspired book. Whether complete allegory, partial history, spiritual history, or accurate history, the book itself meets its mission: it testifies of Christ and contains the restored gospel in its purest form. Of this I have no doubt: I have knowledge of such, having tested it out through the challenge Alma gives us in Alma 32.

Now we get to the little problem that Joseph Smith claimed that it was an authentic translation of an ancient record written upon gold plates. While some LDS apologists have found some creative way to still claim that it's possible that the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical record, the evidence is profound against the original, literal interpretation Joseph Smith claimed it was. In the Wentworth Letter, he claimed that the native americans of this country (USA) were the Lamanites -- something that is extraordinarily unlikely. While the LDS apologists continue to claim historical origin and now meso-american geography, the archeological and DNA evidence makes the Book of Mormon very unlikely to be historical. While I note that at least the small plates were never intended to be historical, that concept is lost on those who require physical evidence to confirm their faith. At very least, Joseph Smith was wrong in claiming that USA-native americans were lamanites.

As well, Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Abraham was a legitimate translation of a common funerary scroll -- something now proven, at least as far as the facsimiles go, as not to be the case.

What was going on here? Was Joseph a liar? Was he deluded? Are these the only choices? Whether or not we like the terms, given the evidence, there was something short of 'the truth' in at least some of the claims Joseph Smith made. Rather than ascribing mal-intent, I choose to have faith (trust) that there may be a good reason for such claims. I don't know the reasons, but I would not use the terms "liar" or "deluded" in any way to explain what well me a divine process. To say that either Joseph was always telling the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth, versus that he was a liar or deluded is again to create a false dichotomy. I choose to see this through Paul's dark-colored glasses: Joseph Smith knew in part, and prophesied in part -- and prophecy, as reflected through the mind and heart of the prophet, is often colored by the limits of the prophet's understanding.

To be continued in my response to the original post...

Edited February 16, 2013 by wayfarer

[Louis Midgley]

While I more or less agree with your statement, one can still appreciate the spirituality of the book while rejecting its truth claims. Much like someone reading the Zohar without believing in R. Simeon b. Yohai's authorship.

I am aware that one can find something interesting and in that sense "inspiring" in a whole host of books. And one might (and perhaps some actually do) find bits and pieces of "spirituality," whatever that means to those who use that kind of language, in the Book of Mormon. Those who think they can give truth the boot and enjoy something they call "spirituality" need to see what Robert Price, who thinks that there was no Jesus, and is a militant atheist, finds "inspiring" in the Book of Mormon. And what Mark Thomas, his really close alley, brought him to BYU to teach the Saints how better to read their quirky frontier fiction fabricated by a liar/lunatic.

[Louis Midgley]

But you cannot pretend to believe in JS claims, and the claims of the witnesses. The BOM just another inspiring work of fiction -- no restoration, no visions, no priesthood. Just a bunch of fiction and falsehoods about its origin.

The point your making is exactly what Mark Thomas avoids confronting by his rant about history being just boring facts.

[wayfarer]

...I actually joined this message board so that I could observe and contribute to a discussion of an essay I had written that was started by someone upset by something I had written.

...

This morning Mark Thomas, a close ally of Price, sent a comment on my review of Price’s book to Interpreter, though there is nothing in this comment that addresses my review of Price’s book. Instead, he is angry about the other essay which he does not mention.

Why would anyone be angry with anything you have written, Dr. Midgley? It seems completely incomprehensible that anyone would take offence at being referred to as "anti-christ":

Some vocal cultural Mormons, busy asking themselves “why stay,” claim that it is not at all probable that there is a God, or that there even was a Jesus of Nazareth. They also ridicule the Atonement. In the language of our scriptures they are antichrists

Do you recognize this language? And while you stand firmly behind it as your own words, I wonder if we shouldn't go to the language of scriptures themselves to understand how ironic your quoting scripture out of context is.

In the first case, John wanted to point out that the people to whom he wrote were awaiting signs for the last day, the last hour, the eschatalon. He believed, as did many of the early Saints, that the second coming would literally come in their lifetime. They were awating "THE Antichrist" (ho antichristos), hence, perhaps, were not as aware of the urgency of the second coming. John's point was that we shouldn't think that there is an "Antichrist", but rather, there were "antichrists" -- (antichristoi). His specific observation and reference was to that of Cerinthus, a schismatic doctrine that said that Jesus and Christ were not the same person, a very specific gnostic apostasy that troubled the early leaders of the Saints. He was simultaneously using the evidence of the antichristoi as evidence of the "last hour" (exchate hora) being in the here and now, as well as encouraging those that received the anointing to not be apostates themselves.

While the latter use of "antichristoi" -- encouraging certain members not to adopt the gnostic heresy -- may be applicable to those who have unorthodox views, I would reserve John's use of it to his authority as Apostle, and not take the scripture out of context to declare and label as Antichrist those who question, who struggle with the literalness of some of the historical statements around Jesus and the Book of Mormon, yet choose to stay (yes, we ask "why stay" and we answer "because we have faith").

Your use of this "language of scripture" is ironic for two important reasons:

1. Paul refers to the saints as being "anointed" (you have received the anointing from the Holy One). I find this extraordinarly significant as an evidence of the restoration of the Gospel. Yet your (Dr Midgley's) use of this verse out of context is to declare as evil (antichrist) some 'vocal cultural mormons', including those who have made certain covenants such that they might be called, as John does here, "the lords anointed". When we speak evil things (antichrist being most certainly an evil label) against those whom the Lord has anointed, I wonder which side of the battle we're fighting on...It not only is offensive to those who struggle, but deeply disturbing to see saints make such accusations of each other. The Lord said through Joseph Smith, "I say unto you, be one, and if you are not one you are not mine". Yes, Dr Midgley, I have also had my hands dirtied by saying evil things -- I am not without sin here. But I continue to stand opposed to your language as being harmful to those who struggle, and declare against such language being appropriate in a gospel setting.

As Mark Thomas indicates in his response, the use of attack language (and I would see "antichrist" as attack language) tends to stifle meaningful dialog around an alternative spiritual understanding of the Book of Mormon. If such attacks are your intent, then why post here that you want to explore how it is possible for someone to have a spiritual understanding of the Book of Mormon absent literalism?

2. The very context of John's "antichrist" scripture was a prevailing understanding that the second coming would literally come within the lifetime of the surviving apostles. John's conversion from "ho antichristos"/"THE Antichrist" to "antichristoi"/"antichrists" was to prove that the eschatalon, or the eschate hora, had already come.

Yet the eschatalon did not come in the life of the apostles, not at least according to the literal life-span they expected. As Jerusalem fell and the temple was destroyed, the Jerusalem center -- Church Headquarters -- was scattered, yet the Christ did not come again in glory in their lives to rectify these things. The second coming 'literally' did not happen according to the prevailing 'literal' interpretation of prophecy. Sure, they didn't understand that the apostasy would have to occur, the restoration, and etc. But more importantly, their holding onto a literal interpretation that proved to be false caused many to 'apostasize'. The church became segmented into the various local congregation, the apostles killed off, and so the story goes.

We have a degree of similarity today. There are many who hold on to literal interpretations -- especially of the book of mormon -- which may not be true in the same way that the literal interpretation indicates. You, Dr. Midgley, hold on to the idea that a literal understanding of the book of mormon is the only acceptable one, lest the entire gospel message come crumbling down. I hope that is a fair characterization of your point of view -- i mean no disrespect in this message. My concern is that about what if that specific message turns out not to be true -- what if it is possible that there is no meaningful literal interpretation of the book of mormon? What if the Lord really did mean it to be divine allegory? Would your faith withstand that trial? Would those who follow your teachings with rapt attention be well served in that day that the geographic size of the book of mormon historical population aproaches zero hectares?

I and others -- perhaps Mark Thomas being one of them -- hold that the traditional apologetic approach of trying to defend the literal history of the book of mormon is an ill-fated exercise. Yet, the Book of Mormon is very much scripture in the divine traditional of almost all scripture -- delivered through the mind and heart of the prophet, and in many cases given the imprimatur of ancient authorship when in fact it is not. If god's revelation reflects ancient wisdom, and if we in faith accept it as scripture, then what do the mechanics of when it was actually penned matter?

[rongo]

Why do we have to go to the "all-or-nothing" false dichotomy? . . . I can and do have abiding faith that the Gospel was restored through Joseph Smith . . . As for 'priesthood', the structure of LDS priesthood mirrors the authorization approach of the early church rather well.

Do you include transfer of priesthood authority by the laying on of hands of resurrected angels (John, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elijah, Elias, etc.) in your abiding faith that the Gospel was restored through Joseph Smith?

Does it matter?

You tell us.

[wayfarer]

I am aware that one can find something interesting and in that sense "inspiring" in a whole host of books. And one might (and perhaps some actually do) find bits and pieces of "spirituality," whatever that means to those who use that kind of language, in the Book of Mormon. Those who think they can give truth the boot and enjoy something they call "spirituality" need to see what Robert Price, who thinks that there was no Jesus, and is a militant atheist, finds "inspiring" in the Book of Mormon. And what Mark Thomas, his really close alley, brought him to BYU to teach the Saints how better to read their quirky frontier fiction fabricated by a liar/lunatic.

Do you think it's possilble, Dr. Midgley, that your characterization of 'quirky frontier fiction fabricated by a liar/lunatic' is nothing more than a strawman of what Mark Thomas believes? Is is possible, to you, that you're creating a false dichotomy?

[Kevin Christensen]

I personally think King Lear is inspired, Hero with a Thousand Faces, inspiring, the Harry Potter books powerfully typifying of Christ and therefore, according to 2 Nephi 11:4, given of God. Over the past couple of years, my wife and I have listened to/read most of Terry Prachett's Discworld novels, and despite Prachett's professed atheism, I consider them both inspired and inspiring. But the difference between inspiring and binding is a real difference. The difference between Joseph Campbell and C. S. Lewis is that Campbell sees Jesus as just another myth, and Lewis sees Jesus as the reality that all the rest point towards. I'm fine with anyone reading the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction, but I will defend the right to read it as inspired translation, pointing much more directly to what is real, than as no more than a type of what is real.

Mark Thomas' approach in Digging in Cumorah has its moments, but also its blindspots. His chapter on Dying Heretics, for instance, concludes that the type scene is stereo typed and boring. That is, not particularly inspiring. I think that his pattern is too narrow. Robert Alter, his model, had pointed out in The Art of Biblical Narrative that the variations in pattern are important, a way for different stories to allusively call attention to the importance of differences. So, rather than a narrow look at Korihor, Nehor, and Sherem, and declaiming the sameness, and overlooking important distinctions that a historicist approach sees (see Welch in Legal Cases of the Book of Mormon), a step back to include variant outcomes to liminal encounters should include Laman and Lemuel, Zeezrom, Alma and the Sons of Mosiah, and the Lamanites in Helaman, among others. That broader view of type scenes looking past just dying heretics, but including Laman and Lemuel who live, or Alma who responds to words and who converts, or Alma2 who is reborn, rather than dies. brings in others who saw and angel, and were not converted, or were, or Zeezrom and Alma the Elder who responded to words. Instead of dull didactic stereotype, I see humanity across a wide spectrum, and find the scripture richer and more resonant.

What is real is binding, and therefore, makes sense of the concept of covenant. A community bound by a metaphor may have some appeal, but the connection far less power, and demands less committment. Given a choice between all or nothing, or all or even just a portion of the word, and a desire to believe, a portion is a place to start. From that point on, the nurture is important. So how well does Thomas nurture the seed, what grows, compared to those who embrace historicity?

Speaking of type-scenes, Robert Alter writes:

Since biblical narrative characteristically catches its protagonists only at the critical and revealing points in their lives, the biblical type-scene occurs not in the rituals of daily existence but at the crucial junctures in the lives of the heroes. . . . Some of the most commonly repeated biblical type-scenes I have been able to identify are the following: the annunciation . . . of the birth of the hero to his barren mother; the encounter with the future betrothed at a well; the epiphany in the field; the initiatory trial; danger in the desert and the discovery of a well or other source of sustenance; the testament of the dying hero.

12

Thomas had quoted this passage in Digging in Cumorah, but to my surprise, didn't use it to identify type scenes in the Book of Mormon. My wife and I did:

In comparing this passage to the Book of Mormon, we think of Nephi's vision of the virgin; Nephi's journey to find Ishmael, whose daughters marry Lehi's sons, thereby fulfilling a commandment from God (see 1 Nephi 7:1; 16:7—; Nephi's vision; Nephi's initiatory adventures in securing the plates of Laban; much danger in the desert; the discovery of the Liahona; Lehi's blessings to his sons; and other closing testimonies by his successors. Clearly, the selectivity of the Book of Mormon narrative has a cultural background and a literary context. With an eye alert to the notion of type-scenes, when we look back at the other fairly detailed accounts of specific women (or groups of women) in the Book of Mormon, we notice that many have significant archetypal or ritual backgrounds.

What difference does it make? To borrow a phrase from Ian Barbour:

"Whether a person chooses to adopt a religious or irreligious view or a historicist or environmentalist view of the Book of Mormon 'makes a difference not only in one's attitudes and behavior but in the way one sees the world. One may notice and value features of individual and corporate life that otherwise might be overlooked.'"

Those who insist that there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon seem to me to have overlooked a great deal.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[wayfarer]

Do you include transfer of priesthood authority by the laying on of hands of resurrected angels (John, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elijah, Elias, etc.) in your abiding faith that the Gospel was restored through Joseph Smith?

'transfer of priesthood authority' could have occurred through any way god chose transfer of authority to occur. We use the 'laying on of hands', physically as a deed for word that it occurred. In what way did it occur for Joseph Smith? When, specifically, did Peter James and John come down to restore the Melchizedek priesthood? How did Adam receive the priesthood? Was it through laying on of hands?

wayfarer: does it matter?

rongo:You tell us.

uh, no. physical acts are symbolic 'deed for word'. Physical deeds matter to those who require physical evidence in order to sustain their faith. As all are at different levels of faith, then physical acts are entirely appropriate.

[wayfarer]

Given a choice between all or nothing, or all or even just a portion of the word, and a desire to believe, a portion is a place to start. From that point on, the nurture is important. So how well does Thomas nurture the seed, what grows, compared to those who embrace historicity?

Milk may well be necessary for the early stages of life, but milk can cause problems if overused into adulthood.

Those who insist that there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon seem to me to have overlooked a great deal.

as are those who believe that the evidence points to a literal-historical account -- they're overlooking a great deal as well, wouldn't you agree?

The truth of the Book of Mormon rests somewhere in the Middle between 'literal history' and 'inspired fiction'. And that Middle Way is glorious indeed.

Edited February 16, 2013 by wayfarer

[rongo]

'transfer of priesthood authority' could have occurred through any way god chose transfer of authority to occur. We use the 'laying on of hands', physically as a deed for word that it occurred. In what way did it occur for Joseph Smith? When, specifically, did Peter James and John come down to restore the Melchizedek priesthood? How did Adam receive the priesthood? Was it through laying on of hands? . . . physical acts are symbolic 'deed for word'. Physical deeds matter to those who require physical evidence in order to sustain their faith. As all are at different levels of faith, then physical acts are entirely appropriate.

Thank you for your 108 word "no" answer.

MiddleWay, indeed.

Yes, I believe that Adam received the priesthood through the laying on of hands. Not from Peter, James, and John ---- but from Elohim Himself.

'transfer of priesthood authority' could have occurred through any way god chose transfer of authority to occur.

How did Joseph Smith say that it occurred? And why don't you believe him? Because that would require a non-Middle Way.

[Bill Hamblin]

Milk may well be necessary for the early stages of life, but milk can cause problems if overused into adulthood.

as are those who believe that the evidence points to a literal-historical account -- they're overlooking a great deal as well, wouldn't you agree?

The truth of the Book of Mormon rests somewhere in the Middle between 'literal history' and 'inspired fiction'. And that Middle Way is glorious indeed.

Your Middle Way is incoherent nonsense.

[wayfarer]

Thank you for your 108 word "no" answer.

MiddleWay, indeed.

I didn't say no, nor did I mean no. Please don't mischaracterize my words.

Yes, I believe that Adam received the priesthood through the laying on of hands. Not from Peter, James, and John ---- but from Elohim Himself.

Then you don't know the scriptures.

Moses 6:66-67 - And he (Adam) heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from henceforth and forever; And thou art after the order of him who was without beginning of days or end of years, from all eternity to all eternity.

It was a voice from heaven, not the laying on of hands. Is anything too hard for the Lord? Do you think that the laying of hands has any more power than what it is? Yet we follow that symbolism with exactness -- and so it should be.

How did Joseph Smith say that it occurred? And why don't you believe him? Because that would require a non-Middle Way.

He never recorded the exact claim, only referred to it. This is the problem with some of the historical account -- a lot more of it is through spiritual means than most LDS are willing to accept.

You fail to understand what it means to embrace the Middle Way. When you embrace the Middle, you can see that there is often a lot of benefit to a balanced view. It's about balance, about seeing both sides of a question, it's about avoiding the extremes of emotion, and about, as Dieter Uchtdorf declares, being in the middle of our eternal lives. It's a recognition that our understanding of truth is an evolutionary thing, and rather than taking an extreme position, it's often helpful to explore truth with an open mind,.

[wayfarer]

Your Middle Way is incoherent nonsense.

Thank you for sharing your kind views as always, "Brother" Hamblin. The Middle Way is about standing on two legs. What will happen to your faith when the geographic area of the historical book of mormon population approaches zero hectares? Will you have another leg to stand on?

Edited February 16, 2013 by wayfarer

[Louis Midgley]

Why do we have to go to the "all-or-nothing" false dichotomy? I think Mark Thomas is making it clear that he is a believer, but does not require (nor absolutely deny) that the Book of Mormon is historical.

I can and do have abiding faith that the Gospel was restored through Joseph Smith. I can go so far to say that I have a witness of that restoration, having studied the evidence that much of what we find unique and even a little quirky in the LDS church today was present in the early church. As for visions, Paul had a vision on the road to Damascus. Was it a physical event or some sort of spiritual manifestation? Does it matter? The reality of his vision is unprovable, but we accept it in faith.

I am delighted to see you again in the role of an apologist for your own novel understanding of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I don’t think that this thread is the proper place to set out your heresies–that is, your new and presumably improved version of the historical grounds and contents of the faith of Latter-day Saints beginning with Joseph Smith right down to the present. I strongly recommend that, if you are open to persuasion, you start by reading the two essays about which Mark Thomas has opined in the item I included above. The topic of this thread is the opining of Robert M. Price, and the support given him by Mark Thomas through something called “Book of Mormon Round Table” that was conducted when Thomas was an employ (but not a teacher) of the BYU business school. And the bizarre emotional outburst from Thomas when he discovered my history of his relationship with Free Inquiry, Price and so forth. What I wrote is called intellectual history.

Thomas does not like history at all–it is, he thinks, just boring facts. I think Thomas is right that those concerned about the rash of attempts to pull the Church from its historical foundations should read what he has written (and what Robert Price has written). My essays were my attempt to help the Saints to know of and understand the significance of the rash of presumably new ways of unraveling the faith of the Saints.

[wayfarer]

I am delighted to see you again in the role of an apologist for your own novel understanding of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I don’t think that this thread is the proper place to set out your heresies–that is, your new and presumably improved version of the historical grounds and contents of the faith of Latter-day Saints beginning with Joseph Smith right down to the present.

Nice. Great mischaracterization of what I said.

I strongly recommend that, if you are open to persuasion, you start by reading the two essays about which Mark Thomas has opined in the item I included above.

Which I already have done. Then I read the material you reviewed. What I find consistent in your reviews is an incredible penchant to mischaracterize the words of the others, set up a straw-man, and then rebuke the strawman. I found it disingenuous in our previous encounters, and find it disingenuous now.

The topic of this thread is the opining of Robert M. Price, and the support given him by Mark Thomas through something called “Book of Mormon Round Table” that was conducted when Thomas was an employ (but not a teacher) of the BYU business school. And the bizarre emotional outburst from Thomas when he discovered my history of his relationship with Free Inquiry, Price and so forth. What I wrote is called intellectual history.

what you wrote is opinion. biased, disingenuous opinion. Hardly to your condescending words of 'intellectual history'. If you actually READ what I wrote, you might note that I took exception to your false dichotomy in your reviews. But since this is your thread, it's your rules, and if you want to respond without the remotest degree of understanding, who's going to stop you? Enjoy!

Edited February 16, 2013 by wayfarer

[Louis Midgley]

Your Middle Way is incoherent nonsense.

I agree with Bill Hamblin on this one. To say that history does not matter, as Mark Thomas does, and that there was no historical Jesus (or God) as Price does, or that the Book of Mormon might be partly historical ;and partly fiction, as Wayfarer does, is pure rubbish. What part of the Book of Mormon could be an actual history, while much of it is fiction? Well, could not resurrected Jesus have turned up in America, while the story of the Lehites leaving Jerusalem be fiction. Who would have then made a record of the visit of Jesus to America, if there was no Lehi colony? When one hears talk of the Book of Mormon being partly real history and partly fiction, one has found someone confused. And it one finds someone certain that it has been proven to be fiction because of DNA or whatever, then one has located someone unfamiliar with the competent literature--that is, someone perhaps recently Dehlinialized, or Vogelized, and so forth. There is, of course, a debate over the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but the critics are not winning it. And this debate started even before the Book of Mormon was published. Think of items in the Paul Pry Weekly Bulletin and then "Paul Pry Jr" (Grant Palmer). There are, of course, those who are puzzled and filled with doubts. Instead of blasting away at those willing and able to defend the faith, examples of which we can see on this message board, the proper policy is to ignore nasty name-calling directed as Mopologists--a slur appropriate to the Recovery Board or the Shades Board where violent and unseemly rants are the order of the day, and pay close attention to the competent literature.

[Bill Hamblin]

I agree with Bill Hamblin on this one. To say that history does not matter, as Mark Thomas does, and that there was no historical Jesus (or God) as Price does, or that the Book of Mormon might be partly historical ;and partly fiction, as Wayfarer does, is pure rubbish. What part of the Book of Mormon could be an actual history, while much of it is fiction? Well, could not resurrected Jesus have turned up in America, while the story of the Lehites leaving Jerusalem be fiction. Who would have then made a record of the visit of Jesus to America, if there was no Lehi colony? When one hears talk of the Book of Mormon being partly real history and partly fiction, one has found someone confused. And it one finds someone certain that it has been proven to be fiction because of DNA or whatever, then one has located someone unfamiliar with the competent literature--that is, someone perhaps recently Dehlinialized, or Vogelized, and so forth. There is, of course, a debate over the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but the critics are not winning it. And this debate started even before the Book of Mormon was published. Think of items in the Paul Pry Weekly Bulletin and then "Paul Pry Jr" (Grant Palmer). There are, of course, those who are puzzled and filled with doubts. Instead of blasting away at those willing and able to defend the faith, examples of which we can see on this message board, the proper policy is to ignore nasty name-calling directed as Mopologists--a slur appropriate to the Recovery Board or the Shades Board where violent and unseemly rants are the order of the day, and pay close attention to the competent literature.

Of course, if God revealed a pious fiction to JS to produce the BOM, why couldn't God have just as easily revealed a pious reality about something else? Like other teachings of Jesus in Judea? There is not a reason in the universe that God would reveal fiction about Jesus to try to convince people about the reality of Jesus. God is not a lunatic.

[wayfarer]

I agree with Bill Hamblin on this one. To say that history does not matter, as Mark Thomas does, and that there was no historical Jesus (or God) as Price does, or that the Book of Mormon might be partly historical ;and partly fiction, as Wayfarer does, is pure rubbish.

Just because you or Dr. Hamblin cannot understand, does not mean the position I take is incoherent nonsense or rubbish. Those are your unstubstantiated and I might add ill-informed opinions.

Let's look at the endpoints of the spectrum of "literal book of mormon" and "fiction". Is the Book of Mormon an accurate historical record in 'every verse and every sentence'? I would submit that it is not, nor was it intended to be. The small plates simply were not intended to be a historical record by their own admission. So, is the book of mormon a literal, accurate history? No.

Looking at the other end of the spectrum, that of the two authors you review -- the term 'fiction' too quickly dispells the notion of divine authoriship. So, is the book of mormon fiction? In my opinion, No.

Somewhere between these two points -- somewhere in the Middle -- is the truth of the book of mormon. How is that 'incoherent nonsense'?

There is, of course, a debate over the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but the critics are not winning it. And this debate started even before the Book of Mormon was published.

in your own mind, you may think that you're winning because the contestants left the field a long time ago.

There are, of course, those who are puzzled and filled with doubts. Instead of blasting away at those willing and able to defend the faith, examples of which we can see on this message board, the proper policy is to ignore nasty name-calling directed as Mopologists--a slur appropriate to the Recovery Board or the Shades Board where violent and unseemly rants are the order of the day, and pay close attention to the competent literature.

Again, so, competent literature is...what you at "mormoninterpreter.com" produce. I get it. It's the one with the welcoming tone to those who question as being "anti-christ".

Some vocal cultural Mormons, busy asking themselves “why stay,” claim that it is not at all probable that there is a God, or that there even was a Jesus of Nazareth. They also ridicule the Atonement. In the language of our scriptures they are antichrists

Whether you like it or not, the term "mopologist" is simply an acronym of "mormon apologist".

[wayfarer]

Of course, if God revealed a pious fiction to JS to produce the BOM, why couldn't God have just as easily revealed a pious reality about something else? Like other teachings of Jesus in Judea? There is not a reason in the universe that God would reveal fiction about Jesus to try to convince people about the reality of Jesus. God is not a lunatic.

What about the god, who through pious fraud, declared "Sh'ma Ysrael, (hashem) eloheinu, (hashem) ehad!" through writing ascribed to moses that moses never wrote? Why do you ascribe to Joseph Smith a different method of scriptural transmission than that practiced by the priests of Josiah?

Edited February 16, 2013 by wayfarer

[Bill Hamblin]

Just because you or Dr. Hamblin cannot understand, does not mean the position I take is incoherent nonsense or rubbish. Those are your unstubstantiated and I might add ill-informed opinions.

Let's look at the endpoints of the spectrum of "literal book of mormon" and "fiction". Is the Book of Mormon an accurate historical record in 'every verse and every sentence'? I would submit that it is not, nor was it intended to be. The small plates simply were not intended to be a historical record by their own admission. So, is the book of mormon a literal, accurate history? No.

Looking at the other end of the spectrum, that of the two authors you review -- the term 'fiction' too quickly dispells the notion of divine authoriship. So, is the book of mormon fiction? In my opinion, No.

Somewhere between these two points -- somewhere in the Middle -- is the truth of the book of mormon. How is that 'incoherent nonsense'?

in your own mind, you may think that you're winning because the contestants left the field a long time ago.

Again, so, competent literature is...what you at "mormoninterpreter.com" produce. I get it. It's the one with the welcoming tone to those who question as being "anti-christ".

Whether you like it or not, the term "mopologist" is simply an acronym of "mormon apologist".

You've never understood the argument. Or at least you are not engaging it.

Historicity of the BOM is not about inerrancy nor literalness. Historicity means that there really was a Lehi, Nephi, Alma, Mormon, Moroni, etc. And most important, that the resurrected Christ literally came to the Americas.

The allegory of the Olive Tree is obviously not literal nor historical. That is not, and never has been, the question. The question is: did Jacob really exist. Texts are never "history." They are memorials of history.

What is incoherent is that claim that God would reveal false and fictitious tales about a Christophany in the the New World in order to convince people that Jesus really is the Christ, when he could have revealed actual authentic information about the historical Jesus in Judea to achieve the same purpose.

[Louis Midgley]

What about the god, who through pious fraud, declared "Sh'ma Ysrael, (hashem) eloheinu, (hashem) ehad!" through writing ascribed to moses that moses never wrote? Why do you ascribe to Joseph Smith a different method of scriptural transmission than that practiced by the priests of Josiah?

Why borrow the fully discredited pious fraud explanation of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon from Dan Vogel, and then try to stick the one you call "the god" with base motives? The ;;more you try to defend or vindicate your middle way or whatever you call your heresy. the more you let your mask fall. Please get back on topic. Do you think that the Robert M. Price, a militant atheist and one who also argues that there was no historical Jesus, offers what Thomas calls a "new spirituality in the Book of Mormon" by reading it the way he does? Or will you grant that this is bunk? Please, do not attack me. Just try dealing with the topic of this thread.

[Bill Hamblin]

Why borrow the fully discredited pious fraud explanation of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon from Dan Vogel, and then try to stick the one you call "the god" with base motives? The ;;more you try to defend or vindicate your middle way or whatever you call your heresy. the more you let your mask fall. Please get back on topic. Do you think that the Robert M. Price, a militant atheist and one who also argues that there was no historical Jesus, offers what Thomas calls a "new spirituality in the Book of Mormon" by reading it the way he does? Or will you grant that this is bunk? Please, do not attack me. Just try dealing with the topic of this thread.

That's asking too much, Lou. Really, what do you expect here?