Must The Book Of Mormon Be A Historical Text?

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Well, of course, you are correct in the sense that the Gospels were composed to serve the purposes of a Church, and that is their situation in life.  The epistles and some other NT compositions had somewhat different purposes and were presented in different genres.  So, you are quite right to suggest that the BoM writers were not modern historians, but I don't know anyone who actually ever believed that they were.

 

Unfortunately, there are some mean-spirited folks out there who think that this automatically means that they contain no history and that they cannot be evaluated on the basis of secular historiography.  Historians and archeologists are constantly engaged in just such work.  As a community they tend to correct one another, and things get sorted out over time.

 

I am likewise very sad for the polemicists who have nasty things to say about the Genesis Creation stories, when it is clear that those stories were not written as science textbooks.  The secularists regularly make a foolish category mistake in such appraisals.  They seem blind to the figurative and symbolic elements in such texts.

[Robert F. Smith]

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....

Good testimony.  I gave you a rep point for that.

[why me]

Well, of course, you are correct in the sense that the Gospels were composed to serve the purposes of a Church, and that is their situation in life.  The epistles and some other NT compositions had somewhat different purposes and were presented in different genres.  So, you are quite right to suggest that the BoM writers were not modern historians, but I don't know anyone who actually ever believed that they were.

 

Unfortunately, there are some mean-spirited folks out there who think that this automatically means that they contain no history and that they cannot be evaluated on the basis of secular historiography.  Historians and archeologists are constantly engaged in just such work.  As a community they tend to correct one another, and things get sorted out over time.

You are right about the mean spirited folks out there. I suppose that those who believe in just the bible don't put the same standard that they have for the bible to the book of mormon. They overlook the inconsistencies in the gospels and the contradictions. Also, when jesus fulfills old testament prophecies, these same people never consider the fact that jesus was well read in the old testament and knew of these prophesies that he fulfilled.

 

For the new testament much history is never mentioned because it was not in the writers goal to write such history. They had their audience and wrote accordingly. I think that we can claim the same for the book of mormon and its authors. Plus we need to remember the book of mormon is an abridgement of a much longer text.

 

I think that there are people who think that the book of mormon writers were just writing history but that was not their attention. They were writing for a specific people at a specific time.

[why me]

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?

He did overturn the tables. But the historical nuances that this would cause the jewish leaders were left out of the account. Historically, people were put to death for defamation against the temple or severely reprimanded. That is historical and plays into what happened to christ when he was brought before pilot.

 

What do we know of jesus from the new testament? Not much. Why? Because it was not in the interest of the writers to tell us. So, historians need to piece together what could have happened at that time in jesus' life.

[Gervin]

What do we know of jesus from the new testament? Not much. 

 

Other than the historically weak New Testament, what do you consider the best source of historical information about Jesus?

[Questing Beast]

Other than the historically weak New Testament, what do you consider the best source of historical information about Jesus?

The "apocryphal" works. But they are disappointing compared to the Four Gospels. At best the apocryphal works point the reader back to the NT. There is a reason why the NT works are canonical and the rest are not....

[CV75]

They were writing for a specific people at a specific time.

Yes, and as they did so, sometimes they were writing testimony, and other times doctrine, prophecy, visions, dreams, desires and prayers, and sometimes what others wrote about these things, and sometimes how any of these things play out in their own or others’ past history, current events, and/or future events. With this in mind, the imperfection of the historical documentation (by some quality standards) is to be expected.

[cdowis]

BOTTOM LINE

 

If the BOM is fiction then --

1. The Book of Mormon fails as a second witness for Christ, if it is fiction.

2. The angel Moroni is a fictional character, so Joseph Smith is either a liar or delusional.

3. The plates did not exist.  The eleven witnesses were either delusional or liars.

 

Given the points above, one would conclude that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, he did not restore the church of Christ, and the LDS church is false.

 

It may be nice to be a "social Mormon" such as a choir director, but don't pretend that one can have a testimony of the gospel and the church.  The Book of Mormon is the test of whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet

 

"The book of Mormon is fictional" is, for that person, a failure of the test.

Edited August 26, 2013 by cdowis

[Gervin]

BOTTOM LINE

 

If the BOM is fiction then --

1. The Book of Mormon fails as a second witness for Christ, if it is fiction.

2. The angel Moroni is a fictional character, so Joseph Smith is either a liar or delusional.

3. The plates did not exist.  The eleven witnesses were either delusional or liars.

 

Given the points above, one would conclude that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, he did not restore the church of Christ, and the LDS church is false.

 

It may be nice to be a "social Mormon" such as a choir director, but don't pretend that one can have a testimony of the gospel and the church.  The Book of Mormon is the test of whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet

 

"The book of Mormon is fictional" is, for that person, a failure of the test.

I agree with #1 and #2 but I think it's difficult to castigate the 11 as full-in participants or delusionalists (if that's a word) if the first two are true; they could have been duped or otherwise marginally engaged with the true provenance of the book.  

[Questing Beast]

If the LDS faith is something different from what most members believe it to be, including it's founder, does that de facto make it bad? What if all religions are exactly alike that way? Belief based on assertions and assumptions but few facts. Are those who believe in their "prophetic" gifts delusional? or "special"? What if they receive information according to their expectations? Not the contents necessarily, but the manner of the receiving and the paradigm that they already believe is reasonable. JS's religious paradigm was not significantly different from his religious upbringing. It was biblical from start to finish. God communicated within that milieu. All religions are established upon the expectations of earlier shared religious ideas and traditions. That doesn't make them false, just different from what most believers assume.

 

We are the ones doing all the changing and learning here, not "God".

 

The biggest mistaken notion "moderns" always have is that they are somehow more worthy of God's communication than previous generations; especially now, when the world is so much more advanced and advancing rapidly into more change all the time. We must be more knowledgeable about God too. How can we know so much more about almost everything than earlier generations did, and not know more about God? So we assume that what we believe, at such a pivotal time, must really be true. God wouldn't advance us in material ways without granting us the knowledge about himself. So we view our advancements as evidence of our worthiness to know more about God than ever before. And we fall for the classic blunder, of thinking we are different now, and now we know what was unknown before.

 

But "God" remains inscrutable. Because "God" Is Infinite and we remain finite.

 

Our advancements are mere window dressing, a different way of living, nothing more. Our minds are no better than earlier minds, our wisdom perhaps not as great as earlier examples of wisdom. "God" works with us as before, according to our perceptions, communicating through the world we believe in.

 

The reality is infinitely more than what we believe, so there cannot possibly be ONE WAY of satisfying "God" dogmatically. I am sure that all "he" cares about is the Joy that grows when justice is served mercifully, and everyone gets all the help they need to see the light. If it comes through Mormonism that is good. If Joy comes through an honest life elsewhere it is not inferior, because it is the honesty that counts....

[helaman38]

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?

 

I ask out of pure ignorance because I don't know enough about the BofM or the Mormon faith to make this determination so please don't take this as any criticism, I genuinely want to know the answer.

 

Thanks.

 

The first thing you should know as someone outside of Mormonism is that Mormons don't follow the Book of Mormon and have been cursed (i.e. condemned) for not "doing" what it says (D&C 84:54-57)

 

There's was a promise that "if" those who received the Book of Mormon were faithful to it, they would be given additional ancient writings. This unfortunately never materialize. [No doubt those additional writings contained directions as to where archaeological proofs could be found.]

[TAO]

There's was a promise that "if" those who received the Book of Mormon were faithful to it, they would be given additional ancient writings. This unfortunately never materialize. [No doubt those additional writings contained directions as to where archaeological proofs could be found.]

 

Helaman, I have seen that the prophets and apostles are faithful to the Book of Mormon, and even more important, faithful to God, and so I am skeptical of your assertion.  I know who they are through their actions, and they have been wonderfully faithful to it.

 

The Church is by no means perfect, but the leadership is great.  I know that President Monson is God's prophet called upon the Earth.  And know that the Quorum of the Twelve have all been called of God to be Apostles.  And I know that God works through his priesthood callings throughout this Church, doing many small things to bring to past wonderful miracles that sometimes we do not see.  I know it.

Edited August 26, 2013 by TAO

[helaman38]

Helaman, I have seen that the prophets and apostles are faithful to the Book of Mormon, and even more important, faithful to God, and so I am skeptical of your assertion.  I know who they are through their actions, and they have been wonderfully faithful to it.

 

The Church is by no means perfect, but the leadership is great.  I know that President Monson is God's prophet called upon the Earth.  And know that the Quorum of the Twelve have all been called of God to be Apostles.  And I know that God works through his priesthood callings throughout this Church, doing many small things to bring to past wonderful miracles that sometimes we do not see.  I know it.

 

For those not familiar with the text, this is what it says:

 

54 And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—

55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.

56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.

57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—(D&C 84:54-57)

 

I have studied the topic quite a bit and have come to the conclusion that it is referring to the baptism of all children at the age of eight "for the remission of sins" which was forbidden by the Book of Mormon.

 

According to modern prophets the church has not come out from under that curse and my guess is they won't until the baptism of children for sins stops.

[TAO]

I have studied the topic quite a bit and have come to the conclusion that it is referring to the baptism of all children at the age of eight "for the remission of sins" which was forbidden by the Book of Mormon.

 

According to modern prophets the church has not come out from under that curse and my guess is they won't until the baptism of children for sins stops.

 

Have you been to a baptism in our church?  Did you feel the Spirit there?

 

I have.  Because of that, I do not think the Lord is referring to baptisms at age Eight with those words.  Indeed, and since the prophets say that eight is the age of accountability, I will trust them on that count.  Revelation may change it, but until that revelation comes, we do as we have been asked to do.

 

The Priesthood is given at what one might consider a 'young' age as well, that of 12.  It is given at that age for a good reason, or so I feel.  And I would not be surprised if it was the same way with baptism.

Edited August 26, 2013 by TAO

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 They were writing for a specific people at a specific time.

As some have pointed out on this board, they also had a much broader prophetic purpose in writing for a time centuries later.

The same arguments could be made for biblical authors such as Isaiah, whom some only allow to be speaking to his immediate contemporaries.

[Robert F. Smith]

The first thing you should know as someone outside of Mormonism is that Mormons don't follow the Book of Mormon and have been cursed (i.e. condemned) for not "doing" what it says (D&C 84:54-57)

 

There's was a promise that "if" those who received the Book of Mormon were faithful to it, they would be given additional ancient writings. This unfortunately never materialize. [No doubt those additional writings contained directions as to where archaeological proofs could be found.]

It has been awhile since that 1832 revelation, and your assessment has a Denver Snuffer tone to it.

Moreover, the Saints have in fact paid considerable attention to the Book of Mormon, and we already have adequate secular "proofs" of the historicity of it.  Where have you been for the last sixty years?!

[canard78]

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?

Elder Holland, 2007, PBS interview for 'The Mormons':

PBS: [You say] there are stark choices in beliefs about the origins of the book. Explain why there's no middle way.

Elder Holland: ... If someone can find something in the Book of Mormon, anything that they love or respond to or find dear, I applaud that and say more power to you. That's what I find, too. And that should not in any way discount somebody's liking a passage here or a passage there or the whole idea of the book, but not agreeing to its origin, its divinity. ...

I think you'd be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. ... We would say: "This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I'm going forward. If I can help you work toward that I'd be glad to, but I don't love you less; I don't distance you more; I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum." ... We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

Can Joseph Smith be a Prophet if the "factual claims" in the Book of Mormon were not fact?

Yes

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?

D&C 19:6-7

[ZelphtheGreat]

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.

You could start by producing any location of one of the great cities of the Book of Mormon civilizations.

The book is supposed to be a record of certain civilizations. ALL civilizations leave a footprint on the land they occupy. It should be relatively easy for archaeologists to produce something from where these people lived and died.

 

If that is too difficult, why not get the bones of the Great White Lamanite Warrior I am named after(and who was the topic of a Sacrament Meeting talk last week in our Ward) and test them for DNA studies? It is one skeleton positively identified by Joseph Smith as a Lamanite and DNA testing would be of interest to many of us.

 

I will add in that our local public Library has moved the Book of Mormon from the Religion section to the Fiction shelves. Religious fiction to be sure, but the move is troubling for some of our members who are trying to figure out how to get it put back.

[cdowis]

I will add in that our local public Library has moved the Book of Mormon from the Religion section to the Fiction shelves. Religious fiction to be sure, but the move is troubling for some of our members who are trying to figure out how to get it put back.

 

Talk to your county representative, and explain the situation.  Let them know it should be in the same section as the other religious books (Bible) and moving it into  Fiction is deliberate act of bigotry. 

 

Perhaps the newspapers would be interested.  A few protestors outside the library would give the church some additional publicity. Interview the library staff on why it was moved.

 

Religious bigotry is unacceptable in a tax payer institution.  I think I will check my library since the classification of books is often cotrolled thru the library association guidelines.  You may have hit on something very big.

Edited August 26, 2013 by cdowis

[helaman38]

Have you been to a baptism in our church?  Did you feel the Spirit there?

 

I have.  Because of that, I do not think the Lord is referring to baptisms at age Eight with those words.  Indeed, and since the prophets say that eight is the age of accountability, I will trust them on that count.  Revelation may change it, but until that revelation comes, we do as we have been asked to do.

 

The Priesthood is given at what one might consider a 'young' age as well, that of 12.  It is given at that age for a good reason, or so I feel.  And I would not be surprised if it was the same way with baptism.

 

Have you read the Book of Mormon, I mean all of it and prayed and asked God if it contains the complete gospel of Jesus Christ? Please understand that baptism is for those who need to repent:

 

11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. (Moroni

 

When a person needs to repent and when the age of accountability begins are two entirely separate things. 

 

It has been awhile since that 1832 revelation, and your assessment has a Denver Snuffer tone to it.

Moreover, the Saints have in fact paid considerable attention to the Book of Mormon, and we already have adequate secular "proofs" of the historicity of it.  Where have you been for the last sixty years?!

 

Note, the curse was the result of not "doing" what the Book of Mormon said, not in sending more copies forth. I like the work of Royal Skousen and other professors.

[thesometimesaint]

You could start by producing any location of one of the great cities of the Book of Mormon civilizations.

The book is supposed to be a record of certain civilizations. ALL civilizations leave a footprint on the land they occupy. It should be relatively easy for archaeologists to produce something from where these people lived and died.

 

If that is too difficult, why not get the bones of the Great White Lamanite Warrior I am named after(and who was the topic of a Sacrament Meeting talk last week in our Ward) and test them for DNA studies? It is one skeleton positively identified by Joseph Smith as a Lamanite and DNA testing would be of interest to many of us.

 

I will add in that our local public Library has moved the Book of Mormon from the Religion section to the Fiction shelves. Religious fiction to be sure, but the move is troubling for some of our members who are trying to figure out how to get it put back.

 

Jerusalem is a great city in the Book of Mormon.

 

Did ancient Troy leave footprints easy to find? Also you are assuming that we know exactly where the main events of the Book of Mormon took place. We don't. Some pretty good evidences exist for Mesoamerica however.

 

We don't have the bones. Even if we did that would prove nothing of the truth claims of the Book of Mormon.

 

Your local public library is playing games.

Edited August 26, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[helaman38]

Jerusalem is a great city in the Book of Mormon.

 

Did ancient Troy leave footprints easy to find? Also you are assuming that we know exactly where the main events of the Book of Mormon took place. We don't. Some pretty good evidences exist for Mesoamerica however.

 

We don't have the bones. Even if we did that would prove nothing of the truth claims of the Book of Mormon.

 

Your local public library is playing games.

 

That's a good point about Troy and many other cities of the Bible. Regarding where events in the Book of Mormon took place, we have it from the prophet himself and Moroni that Cumorah is in Palmyra and the final battle took place north of the hill there. Having said that, the gold record itself IS proof, it was physical and was attested to by MANY witnesses. 

 

So, in western NY we have the following proofs so far: cement (the box where the plates were laid) and gold (what the record was written on) and Moroni calling the area "Cumorah." There are not two Cumorahs, just one as President Joseph Fielding Smith taught.

 

What we also have after 2,000 years are the fortifications as described in the Book of Mormon. They are all over western NY and mounds full of the bones of giants and artifacts including a copper engraving of a mastodon in a harness pulling a plow.

[Gervin]

... and artifacts including a copper engraving of a mastodon in a harness pulling a plow.

I have a picture of dinosaurs building Stonehenge

[Calm]

 

 

Your local public library is playing games.

More than likely if it is part of a public system as it would have been given the classification to be used when receiving the book (at least that is what the three libraries I've worked or volunteered in did).  

[ZelphtheGreat]

Can anyone show me the site of ONE Nephite City? Just one?

 

With populations in the millions there must be something left for archaeologists to find. After all, they have found campsites and wintering camps of Indian villages of a hundred or less that are much older than the Book of Mormon peoples. They have found hundreds of remnants of the Norse village in Greenland from a group fewer than a 6,000 people. At least 400 farms hve been identified.

 

All these locations and remnants from fewer than 6,000 people yet not one site from hundreds of thousands of Book of Mormon people - a people with advanced metallurgy, silk, horses and wheeled chariots.

 

As for the Book of Mormon, it is not history and the Fiction section(or religious fiction) is where it belongs.