Must The Book Of Mormon Be A Historical Text?

[Bart Burk]

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 it would be hard to claim that Joseph Smith's story is valid if the angel Moroni didn't really visit him with gold plates.  If the gold plates contained an exaggerated myth from ancient times it could still be valid, but the story of how Joseph Smith received the plates must be true.

[MormonMason]

...

 

re "claims" I don't know of any Biblical prophets that are identified as "historian-prophets" as is Moroni - perhaps I've missed that.

There is no occurrence of the word "historian" in the Book of Mormon.  On the other hand, there were biblical prophets who also kept religious histories of events in their days.  Among these were Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel.  In addition to these there were those who were not considered prophets, such as Ezra and Nehemiah (who also kept 1st person histories of their doings and the doings of others).

[Questing Beast]

I think it would be hard to claim that Joseph Smith's story is valid if the angel Moroni didn't really visit him with gold plates.  If the gold plates contained an exaggerated myth from ancient times it could still be valid, but the story of how Joseph Smith received the plates must be true.

It can be apparently true. His "first vision" was only apparently true, after all, he woke up on his back gazing into heaven. Other visions, even shared ones like in the Kirtland temple, were also only apparently true, not empirically true like a train wreck would be to all witnesses of such. So yes, the Moroni/Nephi story can be apparently true and believed by JS. The whole BoM "story" can be as real history as the Icelandic Sagas, but even those are more real in the empirical sense, since many/most of the people and places named actually can be verified as real. If the city of Zarahemla is ever found, incontrovertibly as the Middle Eastern city of Jericho, it still won't make the story of the BoM anymore real than it is now, just grounded in the real world like the OT or Iliad or Icelandic Sagas. The story itself will never be verified as anything more than "Mormon's" version. Once-upon-a-time the saga writers were taken for historians to be trusted, but that hubris was disabused by further research, and now the Sagas are only one of many sources to arrive at the "truth", with most of the novelistic details having been discounted as fiction. The same would be true for the Bible's sensational/miraculous stories, and that goes for the BoM. The stories are for a purpose, not the relating of facts. The fact about our own time is, those kinds of things do not happen and leave behind any empirical proof. All we get is witness testimony that something "miraculous" happened. There is no proof on the ground for contemporaries to examine, let alone much later writers who only have the conflicting accounts to go by....

[Anti-NOMunistJackMormon]

The problem with the BOM is that when established authority claims absolutes it limits the wonderful message and truth in scripture and leaves no room when further knowledge or information is dicovered. When these absoulute claims are madethey take away life from living scripture. Today we find many passages of the OT to be abhorrent in our modern times but still find things that apply. We are given an out because there is room for supposition and not all must be absolute.

If there were a nuclear holocaust the survivors may find once again truth in what was abhorrent.Should life revert to the time of the old testament. The problem with the BoM is that it has been painted into a corner by absolute statements thatkeep it boxed into a more modern period of history even though it has much spiritual truth to it.

Had Joseph parsed his words and dare I say been more humble in some of his statements I think many of the issues about the BoM would not exist. Calling the BOM the most correct book has actually hurt the BoM and taken some of it's life away.

Other statements and suppositions have also hurt the BoM by making absolute either or propositions. Had leaders made more of an effort to extol the BoM as purely faith based document instead of using it as "evidence" to make absolute claims I feel it would have better served mankind today and in the future.

I don't mean this to sound harsh but it seems holding to the idea that the BoM as an absolute historical document of ancient American history hurts it tremendously. Simply stated if it were announced in conference that we do not know where the Lamanites are and we do not know where the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations are or were would go a long way.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I wonder how many secular scholars, with no stake in the religious claims of the Bible, would claim that Herod wasn't a real person, the Jordan River has never been accurately located, and that Hezekiah's Tunnel mentioned in 2 Kings has not been found?  Are these types of scholars you don't believe in?

 

re "claims" I don't know of any Biblical prophets that are identified as "historian-prophets" as is Moroni - perhaps I've missed that.

But of those secularist, who would make the leap that because Harod lived that that means Jesus really was who he claimed. I mean this really is not something you can debate and win on. The Bom is like the Bible. THere are some facts that can be verified but alot of it cannot be verified by science and it takes faith to believe on it.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[canard78]

The problem with the BOM is that when established authority claims absolutes it limits the wonderful message and truth in scripture and leaves no room when further knowledge or information is dicovered. When these absoulute claims are madethey take away life from living scripture. Today we find many passages of the OT to be abhorrent in our modern times but still find things that apply. We are given an out because there is room for supposition and not all must be absolute.

If there were a nuclear holocaust the survivors may find once again truth in what was abhorrent.Should life revert to the time of the old testament. The problem with the BoM is that it has been painted into a corner by absolute statements thatkeep it boxed into a more modern period of history even though it has much spiritual truth to it.

Had Joseph parsed his words and dare I say been more humble in some of his statements I think many of the issues about the BoM would not exist. Calling the BOM the most correct book has actually hurt the BoM and taken some of it's life away.

Other statements and suppositions have also hurt the BoM by making absolute either or propositions. Had leaders made more of an effort to extol the BoM as purely faith based document instead of using it as "evidence" to make absolute claims I feel it would have better served mankind today and in the future.

I don't mean this to sound harsh but it seems holding to the idea that the BoM as an absolute historical document of ancient American history hurts it tremendously. Simply stated if it were announced in conference that we do not know where the Lamanites are and we do not know where the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations are or were would go a long way.

I celebrate and take comfort in these words:

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

I'm happy for Elder Holland to have an absolute belief in the BoM. I'm also happy that he and the church don't require me to have one.

What makes me a little sad is how threatened people at church/family would feel if I was more open in my beliefs.

[Robert F. Smith]

The problem with the BOM is that when established authority claims absolutes it limits the wonderful message and truth in scripture and leaves no room when further knowledge or information is dicovered. When these absoulute claims are madethey take away life from living scripture. 

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

I don't mean this to sound harsh but it seems holding to the idea that the BoM as an absolute historical document of ancient American history hurts it tremendously. Simply stated if it were announced in conference that we do not know where the Lamanites are and we do not know where the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations are or were would go a long way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have long been under the impression that the LDS Church has no position (absolute or otherwise) on the geography of the Book of Mormon.  As to "absolute" views on the historicity of the book, I would not use the word "absolute," but say that of course the Brethren have consistently taken the view that the Book of Mormon is real history.  The Church which takes your view is the Community of Christ (RLDS Church), which is quickly withering away -- something which is true of mainstream Christianity in general.  In some respects, Bible and Book of Mormon face the same dilemma;  Was their really a Resurrecton, were there really guys named Lehi and Nephi?

[mfbukowski]

I wonder how many secular scholars, with no stake in the religious claims of the Bible, would claim that Herod wasn't a real person, the Jordan River has never been accurately located, and that Hezekiah's Tunnel mentioned in 2 Kings has not been found?  Are these types of scholars you don't believe in?

 

re "claims" I don't know of any Biblical prophets that are identified as "historian-prophets" as is Moroni - perhaps I've missed that.

So because people in that region still speak Hebrew and so the name of a river has not changed, that proves that Jesus died for your sins, right?

 

An interesting proposition.

 

I suggest you read up on historical approaches to the bible.

Wikipedia is always a good place to start, if not to finish.

Challenges to historicity

The Hebrew Bible

There had always been a critical tradition dating back to at least St Augustine of Hippo (354–430), with interpretations "plainly at variance with what are commonly perceived in evangelicalism as traditional views of Genesis."[17] The Jewish tradition has also maintained a critical thread in its approach to biblical primeval history. The influential medieval philosopher Maimonides maintained a skeptical ambiguity towards creation ex nihilo and considered the stories about Adam more as "philosophical anthropology, rather than as historical stories whose protagonist is the 'first man'."[18] Greek philosophers, Aristotle,[19] Critolaus[20] and Proclus[21] held that the world was eternal. That belief was not uncommon among learned Christians.[citation needed]

Galileo is the name most closely associated with the first scientific assault on biblical authority, but the heliocentric universe was sufficiently peripheral to biblical ontology to be eventually accommodated. Galileo's writings were on the Catholic Index of prohibited books[22] All traces of official opposition to heliocentrism by the church disappeared in 1835 when these works were finally dropped from the Index.[23] Nevertheless heliocentricism has been accepted by most (but not all) of today's fundamentalists. It was in fact the birth of geology, marked by the publication of James Hutton's Theory of the Earth in 1788, which set in train the intellectual revolution that would dethrone Genesis as the ultimate authority on primeval earth and prehistory. The first casualty was the Creation story itself, and by the early 19th century "no responsible scientist contended for the literal credibility of the Mosaic account of creation." (p. 224)[24] The battle between uniformitarianism and catastrophism kept the Flood alive in the emerging discipline, until Adam Sedgwick, the president of the Geological Society, publicly recanted his previous support in his 1831 presidential address:

    We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.[25]

All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, and remains, uneven but the mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/mythology rather than history.[26]

A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformation had brought the actual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenment threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work Leviathan denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long after the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History, (which is the only proof of matter of fact)."[27]

Title page of Simon's Critical history, 1682.

The Jewish philosopher and pantheist Baruch Spinoza echoed Hobbes's doubts about the provenance of the historical books in his A Theologico-Political Treatise (published in 1670),[28] and elaborated on the suggestion that the final redaction of these texts was post-exilic under the auspices of Ezra (Chapter IX). He had earlier been effectively excommunicated by the rabbinical council of Amsterdam for his perceived heresies. The French priest Richard Simon brought these critical perspectives to the Catholic tradition in 1678, observing "the most part of the Holy Scriptures that are come to us, are but Abridgments and as Summaries of ancient Acts which were kept in the Registries of the Hebrews," in what was probably the first work of biblical textual criticism in the modern sense.[29]

In response Jean Astruc, applying source criticism methods common in the analysis of classical secular texts to the Pentateuch, believed he could detect four different manuscript traditions, which he claimed Moses himself had redacted. (p. 62–64)[26] His 1753 book initiated the school known as higher criticism that culminated in Julius Wellhausen formalising the documentary hypothesis in the 1870s,[30] which in various modified forms still dominates understanding of the composition of the historical narratives.

By the end of the 19th century the scholarly consensus was that the Pentateuch was the work of many authors writing from 1000 BCE (the time of David) to 500 BCE (the time of Ezra) and redacted c.450, and as a consequence whatever history it contained was more often polemical than strictly factual – a conclusion reinforced by the then fresh scientific refutations of what were at the time widely classed as biblical mythologies, as discussed above.

In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that

    if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham[31]

has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[32]

In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the influence of Albright, counter-attacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[33] "[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'."[34]

The scholarly history of the Deuteronomic history parallels that of the Pentateuch: the European tradition history school argued that the narrative was untrustworthy and could not be used to construct a narrative history; the American Albright school asserted that it could when tested against the archaeological record; and modern archaeological techniques proved crucial in deciding the issue. The test case was the book of Joshua and its account of a rapid, destructive conquest of the Canaanite cities: but by the 1960s it had become clear that the archaeological record did not, in fact, support the account of the conquest given in Joshua: the cities which the Bible records as having been destroyed by the Israelites were either uninhabited at the time, or, if destroyed, were destroyed at widely different times, not in one brief period. The most high-profile example was the "fall of Jericho", when new excavations in the 1950s by Kathleen Kenyon revealed that the city had already been abandoned by the time of Joshua.[35]

Thomas L. Thompson, a leading minimalist scholar for example has written

    "There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. What we do know of Israel and Judah of the tenth century does not allow us to interpret this lack of evidence as a gap in our knowledge and information about the past, a result merely of the accidental nature of archeology. There is neither room nor context, no artifact or archive that points to such historical realities in Palestine's tenth century. One cannot speak historically of a state without a population. Nor can one speak of a capital without a town. Stories are not enough."

Proponents of this theory also point to the fact that the division of the land into two entities, centered at Jerusalem and Shechem, goes back to the Egyptian rule of Israel in the New Kingdom. Solomon's empire is said to have stretched from the Euphrates in the north to the Red Sea in the south; it would have required a large commitment of men and arms and a high level of organization to conquer, subdue, and govern this area. But there is little archaeological evidence of Jerusalem being a sufficiently large city in the 10th century BCE, and Judah seems to be sparsely settled in that time period. Since Jerusalem has been destroyed and then subsequently rebuilt approximately 15 to 20 times since the time of David and Solomon, some argue much of the evidence could easily have been eliminated.

None of the conquests of David nor Solomon are mentioned in contemporary histories. Culturally, the Bronze Age collapse is otherwise a period of general cultural impoverishment of the whole Levantine region, making it difficult to consider the existence of any large territorial unit such as the Davidic kingdom, whose cultural features rather seem to resemble the later kingdom of Hezekiah or Josiah than the political and economic conditions of the 11th century. The biblical account makes no claim that Israel directly governed the areas included in their empires which are portrayed instead as tributaries.[citation needed] However, since the discovery of an inscription dating to the 9th or 8th century BCE on the Tel Dan Stele unearthed in the north of Israel, which may refer to the "house of David" as a monarchic dynast,[36] the debate has continued.[37] This is still disputed. There is a debate as to whether the united monarchy, the empire of King Solomon, and the rebellion of Jeroboam ever existed, or whether they are a late fabrication. The Mesha Stele, dated to c. 840 BCE, may reference the House of David, and mentions events and names found in Kings.[38]

There is a problem with the sources for this period of history. There are no contemporary independent documents other than the accounts of the Books of Samuel, which exhibits too many anachronisms to have been a contemporary account. For example there is mention of late armor (1 Samuel 17:4–7, 38–39; 25:13), use of camels (1 Samuel 30:17), and cavalry (as distinct from chariotry) (1 Samuel 13:5, 2 Samuel 1:6), iron picks and axes (as though they were common, (2 Samuel 12:31), sophisticated siege techniques (2 Samuel 20:15). There is a gargantuan troop (2 Samuel 17:1), a battle with 20,000 casualties (2 Samuel 18:7), and a reference to Kushite paramilitary and servants, clearly giving evidence of a date in which Kushites were common, after the 26th Dynasty of Egypt, the period of the last quarter of the 8th century BCE.[39]

New Testament

The historicity, teachings, and nature of Jesus are also currently debated among biblical scholars. The "quest for the historical Jesus" began as early as the 18th century, and has continued to this day. The most notable recent scholarship came in the 1980s and 1990s with the work of J. D. Crossan,[40] James D. G. Dunn,[41] John P. Meier,[42] E. P. Sanders[43] and N. T. Wright[44] being the most widely read and discussed. The earliest New Testament texts which refer to Jesus, Paul's letters, are usually dated in the 50s CE. Since Paul records very little of Jesus' life and activities, these are of little help in determining facts about the life of Jesus, although they may contain references to information given to Paul from the eyewitnesses of Jesus.[45]

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has shed light into the context of 1st century Judea, noting the diversity of Jewish belief as well as shared expectations and teachings. For example the expectation of the coming messiah, the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount and much else of the early Christian movement are found to have existed within apocalyptic Judaism of the period.[46] This has had the effect of centering Early Christianity much more within its Jewish roots than was previously the case. It is now recognised that Rabbinical Judaism and Early Christianity are only two of the many strands which survived until the Jewish revolt of 66 to 70 CE,[47][48] see also Split of early Christianity and Judaism.

Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[8] four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[49][50] although this view is disputed by other scholars.[51] There are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late. Almost all historical critics agree, however, that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans possibly for insurrection.[52]

Many scholars have pointed out, that the Gospel of Mark shows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is, that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[53][54][55][56] although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more traditional view.[57] The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[58] This may be attributed to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.[59] The writers of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[58]

The absence of evidence of Jesus' life before his meeting with John the Baptist has led to many speculations. It would seem that part of the explanation may lie in the early conflict between Paul and the Desposyni Ebionim, led by James the Just, supposedly the brother of Jesus, that led to Gospel passages critical of Jesus' family[60]

The historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles, the primary source for the Apostolic Age, is a major issue for biblical scholars and historians of Early Christianity.

While some biblical scholars view the Book of Acts as being extremely accurate and corroborated by archaeology, others view the work as being inaccurate and in conflict with the Pauline epistles. Acts portrays Paul as more inline with Jewish Christianity, while the Pauline epistles record more conflict, such as the Incident at Antioch, see also Paul of Tarsus and Judaism.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history#Challenges_to_historicity

 

Actually, the best part of that article is the footnotes.  Quite voluminous.

[mfbukowski]

I think it would be hard to claim that Joseph Smith's story is valid if the angel Moroni didn't really visit him with gold plates.  If the gold plates contained an exaggerated myth from ancient times it could still be valid, but the story of how Joseph Smith received the plates must be true.

And how do we know if Our Lady of Fatima "really" appeared to those children? Or Bernadette, or Padre Pio, or Teresa or....etc?  People who live in glass houses...

[mfbukowski]

There is no occurrence of the word "historian" in the Book of Mormon.  On the other hand, there were biblical prophets who also kept religious histories of events in their days.  Among these were Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel.  In addition to these there were those who were not considered prophets, such as Ezra and Nehemiah (who also kept 1st person histories of their doings and the doings of others).

Exactly.

[Gervin]

 

So because people in that region still speak Hebrew and so the name of a river has not changed, that proves that Jesus died for your sins, right?

 

<snip>

I didn't read anything after this sentence because you are not right.

The topic was literal history.  Make any assumption you want about Jesus; the topic is not faith.

[Gervin]

There is no occurrence of the word "historian" in the Book of Mormon.  On the other hand, there were biblical prophets who also kept religious histories of events in their days.  Among these were Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel.  In addition to these there were those who were not considered prophets, such as Ezra and Nehemiah (who also kept 1st person histories of their doings and the doings of others).

 

I suppose my point was that non-LDS people of scripture don't typically address the people you list as "historian-prophets" as does the LDS Church about Moroni. For example, the Hebrew Bible, Qur'an and Baha'i scripture describe Moses as a religious leader, prophet, lawgiver, author and (to be thorough) a shepherd. Probably just semantics.  It seems to me that is if someone is identified as a historian-prophet, then that person is going to make sure he gets the history right.  A shepherd might not be so inclined to ensure historic accuracy.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Gervin

[Gervin]

 there were those who were not considered prophets, such as Ezra and Nehemiah (who also kept 1st person histories of their doings and the doings of others).

I'm not arguing that there isn't literal history in the Bible; I've been blessed to have spent some time on, around and under the walls of Jerusalem (though not the ones rebuilt by Neh.). But, walls of the oldest parts of the City of David are roughly known and, in some places, found (I believe). 

 

For me, that's literal history and it doesn't matter if your scholar of choice adheres to certain elements of faith, or not.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Gervin

[bcuzbcuz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have long been under the impression that the LDS Church has no position (absolute or otherwise) on the geography of the Book of Mormon.  

You make it sound like that is a good thing.

 

And it may be true, that the LDS church has no position (absolute or otherwise) on the geography of the BofM, nowadays, in the internet age. But it certainly wasn't true when I was raised in the church, during the 50's and 60's, or when I went on my mission in the 60's and faithfully attended temple sessions during the 70's. 

 

Each new discovery in Central America that could be, in any way, linked to the Book of Mormon, whether it be location, place name, glyph or archaeological find, was heralded as proof of the literal history of the book. Tour guides happily alluded to references or sites that Mormons found of interest. I spent many an hour of enthralled attention, listening to fireside chats and presentations and slide shows, of returned visitors and researchers from Chichen Itza, Yucutan and other sites. I bet there are still tours there that highlight a "Mormon" twist to site exploration.

 

But with the availability to research information and reviews within the click of a mouse, suddenly the assured nature of Book of Mormon historicity and accuracy no longer plays so loudly. Now, even church leaders take a step back into the shadowy corridors of not being too sure.

 

A shame really. Life was simpler before the internet.

[mfbukowski]

I didn't read anything after this sentence because you are not right.

The topic was literal history.  Make any assumption you want about Jesus; the topic is not faith.

LOL!

 

Stick your head in the sand when things get uncomfortable, or plug your ears and yell "LALALALA!"

 

That's one strategy I suppose.  But please look at the OP.  The topic IS whether or not scriptures have to be historical to have spiritual value, and you just answered your own question! 

 

Faith is not history, as you yourself admit above!

 

You can pretend to avoid these issues, but it doesn't help your case any.

[mfbukowski]

Probably just semantics.

What discussion is not?  But again, you admit that your point is non-existent.

[mfbukowski]

For me, that's literal history and it doesn't matter if your scholar of choice adheres to certain elements of faith, or not.

That's funny.  That is exactly something I would want to say to you.

[Gervin]

LOL!

 

Stick your head in the sand when things get uncomfortable, or plug your ears and yell "LALALALA!"

I'm not all uncomfortable and find it entirely predictable that your response would be a personal slam.

 

 

You responded to foster about the literal history of the BOM.  See Post 167.   I responded to your response to foster about the literal history.  I understand why don't want to talk about it.

Faith is not history, as you yourself admit above!

 

You can pretend to avoid these issues, but it doesn't help your case any.

 

 

I never claimed that "faith was history."  Feel free to elucidate on "issues I'm avoiding" - I don't see it. 

[Gervin]

What discussion is not?  But again, you admit that your point is non-existent.

Could you explain why you would not expect a more thorough treatment of history from an LDS historian-prophet than a Biblical prophet?

[mfbukowski]

Could you explain why you would not expect a more thorough treatment of history from an LDS historian-prophet than a Biblical prophet?

As has already been explained to you, there is no such thing.

[MormonMason]

I suppose my point was that non-LDS people of scripture don't typically address the people you list as "historian-prophets" as does the LDS Church about Moroni. For example, the Hebrew Bible, Qur'an and Baha'i scripture describe Moses as a religious leader, prophet, lawgiver, author and (to be thorough) a shepherd. Probably just semantics.  It seems to me that is if someone is identified as a historian-prophet, then that person is going to make sure he gets the history right.  A shepherd might not be so inclined to ensure historic accuracy.

Ancient historians were of a far different mindset and did not employ today's modern standards of historiography.  And, "prophet-historian" is a modern label.  The religious histories contained within the Bible are very much like those contained in the Book of Mormon, and employ similar standards.  There were no trained historians in ancient times as we might have them in modern times.

 

As to Moses, he was not always a shepherd.  He was raised like a prince in Egypt and would have been well-educated for someone of his day.  According to Josephus the Jewish historian, Moses also was a military general.  Facts and figures and reports were important to such people.

[MormonMason]

You make it sound like that is a good thing.

 

And it may be true, that the LDS church has no position (absolute or otherwise) on the geography of the BofM, nowadays, in the internet age. But it certainly wasn't true when I was raised in the church, during the 50's and 60's, or when I went on my mission in the 60's and faithfully attended temple sessions during the 70's. 

 

Each new discovery in Central America that could be, in any way, linked to the Book of Mormon, whether it be location, place name, glyph or archaeological find, was heralded as proof of the literal history of the book. Tour guides happily alluded to references or sites that Mormons found of interest. I spent many an hour of enthralled attention, listening to fireside chats and presentations and slide shows, of returned visitors and researchers from Chichen Itza, Yucutan and other sites. I bet there are still tours there that highlight a "Mormon" twist to site exploration.

 

But with the availability to research information and reviews within the click of a mouse, suddenly the assured nature of Book of Mormon historicity and accuracy no longer plays so loudly. Now, even church leaders take a step back into the shadowy corridors of not being too sure.

 

A shame really. Life was simpler before the internet.

A substantial misread of what happened before the age of the Internet.  You aware that the Church has for many years not taken an official stance on the location, and that non-stance being official, aren't you? What individual members do with information they are given is another matter.  The new finds were pretty exciting for people.  You remember Ancient America Speaks, don't you? That was part of an official Proselyting Videocassette series that used to be used by missionaries.  Lots of Mesoamerican stuff there, along with a smattering of South Americas artifacts.  That was way back in 1972.  But, the Church still had no official stance on precise locations in modern geography.

 

Orson Pratt once attempted to insert geographical notes, attempts at aligning certain elements to real-world locations, into the Book of Mormon, in 1879.  They were removed in the very next major edition and only the chronological details kept, along with non-geographical footnotes.  The rest of the leaders of the Church didn't even allow Orson Pratt to claim a set geography way back that far before the Internet.

[MormonMason]

I'm not arguing that there isn't literal history in the Bible; I've been blessed to have spent some time on, around and under the walls of Jerusalem (though not the ones rebuilt by Neh.). But, walls of the oldest parts of the City of David are roughly known and, in some places, found (I believe). 

 

For me, that's literal history and it doesn't matter if your scholar of choice adheres to certain elements of faith, or not.

That's pretty funny, considering that many elements of the "literal history" recorded in the Bible still have no archaeological substantiation.

[Gervin]

As has already been explained to you, there is no such thing.

didn't see that post if you want to reference it.

 

if there is no such thing, why does the Book of Mormon / Church consistently refer to Moroni in this way?

 

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

 

The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon.

[MormonMason]

didn't see that post if you want to reference it.

 

if there is no such thing, why does the Book of Mormon / Church consistently refer to Moroni in this way?

 

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

 

The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon.

That is a modern term in a modern introduction.  People refer to him with that title because that pretty much was what he did.  He was both a prophet and a kind of historian.  But that by no means was what he was called in ancient times or even by anyone in the Book of Mormon.  He stated he was abridging records into his own record.

 

There was no such thing as a trained historian in ancient times.  But, ancient writers did keep histories.  They just did not call them that until Herodotus of Helicarnassus.  He was not well received when he wrote, however.  His own people made him an outcast and called him a liar for writing a history.  But even then he did not hold to the same standards as historians in our own day are trained to follow.