Must The Book Of Mormon Be A Historical Text?

[boulder257]

All these things are historical enough, restored enough, true enough, factual enough, basic enough and inspired enough for the Church to still go on, to survive, and for Jospeh Smith to be a Prophet. But not all written revelation is historical, either: some is commandment, some is precept, some is principle, some is "what is real" and some is what we become.

 

If I understand correctly you are saying that enough of it was accurate so as to justify the qualifications of Joseph Smith? I think that is a dangerous scaffolding to found your argument on as many people have gotten "some" things right in the past. If I am misunderstanding or misrepresenting your argument than please accept my apology and disregard my comment.

Edited August 23, 2013 by boulder257

[why me]

Having never really questioned whether it is historically accurate, I would not know.where to start on the "what if" of it not being historical.

But the same holds true for the new testament. It is not historical at all. Just a faith promoting narrative for the early saints to cling to. It might not even be accurate since the gospels were written long after the death of christ.

[why me]

If I understand correctly you are saying that enough of it was accurate so as to justify the qualifications of Joseph Smith? I think that is a dangerous scaffolding to found your argument on as many people have gotten "some" things right in the past. If I am misunderstanding your argument than please accept my apology and disregard my comment.

If the book of mormon was written on gold plates, the accuracy depends on the writers and their recollections of the events. But the message of the book of mormon is simple: it is a the second witness of christ.

[boulder257]

If the book of mormon was written on gold plates, the accuracy depends on the writers and their recollections of the events. But the message of the book of mormon is simple: it is a the second witness of christ.

 

Gotcha. Thank you.

[CV75]

If I understand correctly you are saying that enough of it was accurate so as to justify the qualifications of Joseph Smith? I think that is a dangerous scaffolding to found your argument on as many people have gotten "some" things right in the past. If I am misunderstanding or misrepresenting your argument than please accept my apology and disregard my comment.

I'm speaking from a standpoint of quality, not quantity. The only thing that makes something “historical” is how well the object or the event measures up to a certain standard, which is only as good (and as varied) as the science or school of thought can be, and even this is only as good as the understanding of the person accepting and using those standards. I don’t think anyone has a perfect understanding of what the eternal standard of history is, so whatever we do understand history to be, by whatever measure we use, is good enough for the Spirit to bear witness that the Book of Mormon, the Church, and Joseph Smith as a Prophet are true, meaning they lead us to Christ and His covenants for exaltation.

[boulder257]

I'm speaking from a standpoint of quality, not quantity. The only thing that makes something “historical” is how well the object or the event measures up to a certain standard, which is only as good (and as varied) as the science or school of thought can be, and even this is only as good as the understanding of the person accepting and using those standards. I don’t think anyone has a perfect understanding of what the eternal standard of history is, so whatever we do understand history to be, by whatever measure we use, is good enough for the Spirit to bear witness that the Book of Mormon, the Church, and Joseph Smith as a Prophet are true, meaning they lead us to Christ and His covenants for exaltation.

 

That makes perfect sense. Thanks for explaining that to me.

[Alvino]

Having never really questioned whether it is historically accurate,

 

This is incredibly troubling.

[Bob Crockett]

If there were no Jaredites, Lamenites, or Nephites can the Church still go on? Must the Book of Mormon be a historical account of early civilizations for the Church to survive or for Joseph Smith to have restored the gospel? Can Joseph Smith be a Prophet if the "factual claims" in the Book of Mormon were not fact?

Would the creation story, Job, Jonah, the 10 plagues, provide a basis that not everything of God or written under the inspiration of God is actual historical fact?

I think you ask a good question.   I don't think it beyond the pale of reason that the Book of Mormon is a massive piece of allegory, much like many of the allegorical stories in the Bible.  I don't think the story of Adam and Eve is much more than a figurative story, and that could be true about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses. 

 

But I think the evidence, the inspired kind of evidence, is against it being an allegory.   The various statements of the prophets, appearances to the prophets, the evidence of the plates and interpreters, really weighs strongly against such a view.

[foster]

But the same holds true for the new testament. It is not historical at all. Just a faith promoting narrative for the early saints to cling to. It might not even be accurate since the gospels were written long after the death of christ.

Would you elaborate; what do mean by not historical? There were no miracles? John did not baptize Jesus?

[foster]

This is incredibly troubling.

Why? What is troubling?

[The Nehor]

If it were shown to be false I would have a lot of questions for God.

[The Nehor]

But the same holds true for the new testament. It is not historical at all. Just a faith promoting narrative for the early saints to cling to. It might not even be accurate since the gospels were written long after the death of christ.

Not that long after his death. It is somewhat telling that there is very little theology set forth in the gospels except accidentally (John admittedly has more then the others). They were written for the edification of the faithful and not as a conversion tool. Most probably written before the generation that had people who knew Jesus could die out.

[Judd]

I'm just waiting for the intellect of our conversations to advance to where we can entertain discussions on the historical existence of Joseph Smith and whether or not he was merely allegorical.

[Robert F. Smith]

I understand that it is not a history book, but wouldn't certain findings seriously bring to question 1)the validity of the prophet, and 2)the all important history of Christ and his appearances in the new world?

 

..............................................................  

Of course, and contrariwise, certain findings would seriously bring into question (1) the validity of mainstream Christendom, and (3) all the claims made about Christ by atheists.  The real question is, what findings are we talking about?  Positive, or negative.  The double-edged sword cuts both ways.

[Rob Osborn]

The historicity of the Book of Mormon is paramount to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The powerful testimonies of many prophets spanning thousands of years is the very thing upon ehich we as God's church either stand or fail. Nephi was a real man. The tale of his people were real. Need I say more?

[Tacenda]

Today I listened to someone say they were released from their calling as ward chorister because she had told her bishop and a few others she no longer believed in the BoM. She said the bishop said she was no longer worthy. Even when she told him she still believed in Jesus Christ and she wondered if what she really belonged to was the church of Joseph Smith by the way she was treated. So I'm thinking one must believe in the historicity of the BoM.

[why me]

Would you elaborate; what do mean by not historical? There were no miracles? John did not baptize Jesus?

It seems that there were miracles. And that John did baptize Jesus, which began his ministry. However, what would the historical interpretation of these miracles be? This is not mentioned in the gospels. But historians do do this. It seems that the miracles were not very convincing to the apostles. When christ was put on the cross, they hid and doubted, afraid for their lives. Why? Historically, the followers of the leader were also slaughtered by the romans. But the apostles and christ's early followers were not persecuted or put to death by the romans at that moment. And It took the resurrected christ to convince the apostles of the mission of jesus and that he was someone special. Then, they began to preach the gospel.

 

I think historically the romans did not believe christ to be a threat to them at all, nor his followers. But they had to put him to death because of the king of the jews understanding and because of what the jews considered to be very serious: the prediction of the destruction of the temple and overturning the money changers' tables. But this has to do with the history at that time and what happened to jews who committed offenses against the temple.

 

The money changers were a needed service at the temple. People needed a certain denomination of money for the temple. So, the money changers were there to offer such a service. Likewise for the doves. This was also a needed service since people would come from all around to offer a sacrifice. Should they have carried their own doves? Historically, his act of overturning such tables may not have been so popular with the people going to the temple.

 

All this is some historical background to some events that are not in the bible. An historian must take a narrative and fill in the pieces with historical fact.

 

How could the narrators of the gospels remember exactly what chirst said and when he said it? They couldn't. But they could give something that they remembered from an oral tradition and yet still be somewhat correct. But there is disagreement in the gospels here and there.

Edited August 24, 2013 by why me

[why me]

It seems that there were miracles. And that John did baptize Jesus, which began his ministry. However, what would the historical interpretation of these miracles be? This is not mentioned in the gospels. But historians do do this. It seems that the miracles were not very convincing to the apostles. When christ was put on the cross, they hid and doubted, afraid for their lives. Why? Historically, the followers of the leader were also slaughtered by the romans. But the apostles and christ's early followers were not persecuted or put to death by the romans at that moment. And It took the resurrected christ to convince the apostles of the mission of jesus and that he was someone special. Then, they began to preach the gospel.

 

I think historically the romans did not believe christ to be a threat to them at all, nor his followers. But they had to put him to death because of the king of the jews understanding and because of what the jews considered to be very serious: the prediction of the destruction of the temple and overturning the money changers' tables. But this has to do with the history at that time and what happened to jews who committed offenses against the temple.

 

The money changers were a needed service at the temple. People needed a certain denomination of money for the temple. So, the money changers were there to offer such a service. Likewise for the doves. This was also a needed service since people would come from all around to offer a sacrifice. Should they have carried their own doves? Historically, his act of overturning such tables may not have been so popular with the people going to the temple.

 

All this is some historical background to some events that are not in the bible. An historian must take a narrative and fill in the pieces with historical fact.

This can also be done with the book of mormon. We can look at the cultural constructs of the people of mesoamerica and put together some history that may have happened in the book of mormon such as customs, cultural traits etc. And how they match up with 'real' history of those people.

Edited August 24, 2013 by why me

[why me]

Today I listened to someone say they were released from their calling as ward chorister because she had told her bishop and a few others she no longer believed in the BoM. She said the bishop said she was no longer worthy. Even when she told him she still believed in Jesus Christ and she wondered if what she really belonged to was the church of Joseph Smith by the way she was treated. So I'm thinking one must believe in the historicity of the BoM.

Or this story is not what it is claimed to be. We always need to take such things with skepticism until proven true by investigation.

[why me]

Today I listened to someone say they were released from their calling as ward chorister because she had told her bishop and a few others she no longer believed in the BoM. She said the bishop said she was no longer worthy. Even when she told him she still believed in Jesus Christ and she wondered if what she really belonged to was the church of Joseph Smith by the way she was treated. So I'm thinking one must believe in the historicity of the BoM.

I would say that it would be difficult to be a mormon if one does not believe in the book of mormon. Likeiwise, it would be difficult to be a chirstian if one did not believe in the new testament. But with your story above, I would expect there is more to the story.

[Questing Beast]

I can testify that belief in the BoM can uphold a belief in the LDS faith and JS as a prophet, a la in the biblical "style". And I can testify that having the BoM fall to the level of inspired fiction, no matter how inspiring or "revealed", that is to say, not grounded in literal historical fact, can result in a loss of belief in the LDS faith, and even all of previously existing Judeo-Christianity, and even all religion as instituted by God. All religion can indeed stand or fall on such a claim or set of claims as the LDS faith pins on the BoM....

[thesometimesaint]

Today I listened to someone say they were released from their calling as ward chorister because she had told her bishop and a few others she no longer believed in the BoM. She said the bishop said she was no longer worthy. Even when she told him she still believed in Jesus Christ and she wondered if what she really belonged to was the church of Joseph Smith by the way she was treated. So I'm thinking one must believe in the historicity of the BoM.

 

Every Christian out there believes in Jesus Christ. While important that doesn't make her a Saint.

[Robert F. Smith]

...........................................................................   

I think historically the romans did not believe christ to be a threat to them at all, nor his followers. But they had to put him to death because of the king of the jews understanding and because of what the jews considered to be very serious: the prediction of the destruction of the temple and overturning the money changers' tables. But this has to do with the history at that time and what happened to jews who committed offenses against the temple.

 

The money changers were a needed service at the temple. People needed a certain denomination of money for the temple. So, the money changers were there to offer such a service. Likewise for the doves. This was also a needed service since people would come from all around to offer a sacrifice. Should they have carried their own doves? Historically, his act of overturning such tables may not have been so popular with the people going to the temple.

 

All this is some historical background to some events that are not in the bible. An historian must take a narrative and fill in the pieces with historical fact.

 

How could the narrators of the gospels remember exactly what chirst said and when he said it? They couldn't. But they could give something that they remembered from an oral tradition and yet still be somewhat correct. But there is disagreement in the gospels here and there.

Historical background can be very helpful, but before finding fault too readily with Jesus' unusual actions at the temple, one might want to study the scholarship on the matter:  Urban von Wahlde, for example, has a long discussion of that event in his "Archaeology and John's Gospel," in James Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and Archaeology (Eerdmans, 2006), 548-555.  After considering a wide spectrum of archeological and literary evidence on what took place and where, von Wahlde concluded that exorbitant rates (which could fluctuate as much as 900% in one day), and pressure to purchase larger animals (even oxen), along with other abuses (not to mention purity issues) may very well have kindled Jesus' ire.  Indeed, the Essene priests had moved to Qumran out of disgust with the way the temple was being managed even before the time of Jesus.  One needs a sense of perspective in such matters.

[why me]

Historical background can be very helpful, but before finding fault too readily with Jesus' unusual actions at the temple, one might want to study the scholarship on the matter:  Urban von Wahlde, for example, has a long discussion of that event in his "Archaeology and John's Gospel," in James Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and Archaeology (Eerdmans, 2006), 548-555.  After considering a wide spectrum of archeological and literary evidence on what took place and where, von Wahlde concluded that exorbitant rates (which could fluctuate as much as 900% in one day), and pressure to purchase larger animals (even oxen), along with other abuses (not to mention purity issues) may very well have kindled Jesus' ire.  Indeed, the Essene priests had moved to Qumran out of disgust with the way the temple was being managed even before the time of Jesus.  One needs a sense of perspective in such matters.

This is one interpretation but at least now we are talking history. This is why the new testament isn't history but faith promoting narratives designed to increase faith among the early christians. It is up to historians to fill in the blanks. Likewise for the book of mormon. The prophets who wrote the book of mormon were not writing history per se. But they were writing narratives to help people be faithful and stay close to god. I wouldn't consider book of mormon writers to be historians.

[foster]

Whyme, while your hypothesis is interesting, I do not understand how it demonstrates the NT is not historical in that you assert that Jesus did not over turn tables; the why Jesus did is explained in His words, is it not?. Also, are you splitting hairs by saying Mormon, Luke, etc, were not historian which means their works do not represent or speak of historical events?

Edited August 24, 2013 by foster