Affirmation Issues A "read The Book Of Mormon" Challenge To Its Members

[Bikeemikey]

I cannot accept this statement, any more than I could this one: "The historicity of Jesus Christ is only as important as the Church (and individual members) require it to be."

Jesus Christ as a mere metaphor has no particular value. He would just be another admirable fictional role model, like Atticus Finch or Gandalf.

Thanks,

-Smac

Your comparison has no equivilaency. For starters Christ is not contingent on the BOM, though the BOM is contingent on Christ.

It seems like you are trying to conflate the idea of a non-historical BOM with a denial of Christ as an historical character.

You can fully support a real historical Christ, you can also affirm that Christ visited the Americas and still not accept the BOM as a historical text.

[smac97]

Your comparison has no equivilaency.

Elder Oaks apparently thinks so: "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived."

For starters Christ is not contingent on the BOM, though the BOM is contingent on Christ.

Can a person have faith in Christ while simultaneously rejecting Christ as an actual, historical figure? I don't think so. Rejecting the historicity of Christ renders Christ a fictional role model, like Atticus Finch or Gandalf. A fictional Christ has no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save.

Can a person have faith in The Book of Mormon while simultaneously rejecting The Book of Mormon as to its historicity? I don't think so. Such a concept renders Joseph Smith a fraud and a liar, and the book itself a fraud and a lie. A fictional Book of Mormon has no real power, and renders it as nothing more than a quirky self-help book. It becomes no more relevant to the salvation of men than Awaken the Giant Within by Anthony Robbins or How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. These are useful books, to be sure. For some, they are even life changing. But The Book of Mormon has - by its own terms - more ambitious plans. Consider the Title Page from an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view:

THE BOOK OF MORMON

AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY

THE HAND OF MORMON

Just kiddin! There was no such person named Mormon. He never existed. Joseph Smith lied or was deluded when he taught anything to the contrary.

UPON PLATES TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI

Again, no dice. There was no Lehi, hence no Nephi, hence no Nephites or records of the Nephites. Hence no abridgment of these records. Hence no Gold Plates. Joseph Smith lied about these plates ever existing. Or he fabricated them and then actively deceived eleven eyewitnesses with faux relics.

Oh, and also, the Three Witnesses lied when they testified that "that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon." Either that, or God sent an angel with fake plates to deceive the Witnesses and the millions of people who have read their testimony. Conspiratorial lying and deception on a grand scale is, sadly, the only option for people who reject the historicity of The Book of Mormon.

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—

No and no. There were no Nephites or Lamanites. From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, these are lies and deceptions.

Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel;

More lies. There were no Lamanites.

and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment,

More lies. From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, Joseph Smith or one of his contemporaries wrote the book. Not Mormon or the Nephite prophets.

and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—

From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, The Book of Mormon is a fraud and a lie, and hence could not be written "by the spirit of prophecy."

Written and sealed up,

Another lie. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, hence nothing was sealed up.

More in the next post.

[smac97]

Continued from the previous post:

and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—

More lies. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, hence nothing to be hidden or potentially destroyed.

To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—

More lies. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, ergo nothing to be translated. From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, Joseph Smith or one of his contemporaries wrote the book.

Sealed by the hand of Moroni,

Another lie. Moroni never existed.

and hid up unto the Lord,

Another lie. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, hence nothing to be hidden.

to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

More lies. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, ergo nothing to "come forth" and nothing to be interpreted.

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared,

Lies upon lies. There were no Jaredites, ergo no Book of Either, ergo no abridgment of their records.

who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—

More lies. There were no Jaredites, ergo no such persons were at the Tower of Babel.

Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—

Lies. There were no Nephites, ergo no portion of the remnant of the House of Israel have the Nephites as their fathers, ergo there is nothing which the Lord did for the non-existent Nephites. Lies, lies, lies.

And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—

From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, the Jew and the Gentile are to be convinced that Jesus is the Christ by way of a book that purports to an ancient record, but is in fact a lie and a fraud? How "convincing" can a book fraught with lies and deceit be?

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, how can there be "faults" in a book which is a monstrous lie? What are its faults? That it's not fraudulent enough?

It seems like you are trying to conflate the idea of a non-historical BOM with a denial of Christ as an historical character.

Not conflate. Compare. Like Elder Oaks did here: "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived."

You can fully support a real historical Christ, you can also affirm that Christ visited the Americas and still not accept the BOM as a historical text.

Please explain how one can affirm such a thing. If The Book of Mormon is not a historical text, if it is not describing historical events, then how does one proceed to affirm one of those never-happened-because-The-Book-of-Mormon-is-not-a-historical-text events, namely, "that Christ visited the Americas?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

Continued from the previous post:

More lies. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, hence nothing to be hidden or potentially destroyed.

More lies. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, ergo nothing to be translated. From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, Joseph Smith or one of his contemporaries wrote the book.

Another lie. Moroni never existed.

Another lie. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, hence nothing to be hidden.

More lies. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, ergo nothing to "come forth" and nothing to be interpreted.

Lies upon lies. There were no Jaredites, ergo no Book of Either, ergo no abridgment of their records.

More lies. There were no Jaredites, ergo no such persons were at the Tower of Babel.

Lies. There were no Nephites, ergo no portion of the remnant of the House of Israel have the Nephites as their fathers, ergo there is nothing which the Lord did for the non-existent Nephites. Lies, lies, lies.

From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, the Jew and the Gentile are to be convinced that Jesus is the Christ by way of a book that purports to an ancient record, but is in fact a lie and a fraud? How "convincing" can a book fraught with lies and deceit be?

From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, how can there be "faults" in a book which is a monstrous lie? What are its faults? That it's not fraudulent enough?

Not conflate. Compare. Like Elder Oaks did here: "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived."

Please explain how one can affirm such a thing. If The Book of Mormon is not a historical text, if it is not describing historical events, then how does one proceed to affirm one of those never-happened-because-The-Book-of-Mormon-is-not-a-historical-text events, namely, "that Christ visited the Americas?"

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Is the title page of the Book of Mormon considered revelation?  Just wonderin'

 

To answer your final question here, please respond to this...

 

Do you believe that a global flood covering the entire surface of the earth and killing every living thing aside from Noah and those souls aboard his ark actually happened?

[AndyDnom]

does the book of mormon say not to be gay? is it going to be hard for those folks to read?

[smac97]

Is the title page of the Book of Mormon considered revelation?  Just wonderin'

The text translated into what became the Title Page of The Book of Mormon was included in the Gold Plates. See here.

 

To answer your final question here, please respond to this...

 

Do you believe that a global flood covering the entire surface of the earth and killing every living thing aside from Noah and those souls aboard his ark actually happened?

First, I am not sure that The Bible text requires a "global flood" interpretation.

Second, interpretation of a text is a separate question from its historicity.

Third, the historicity of The Bible is a much more complex question, I think, than the historicity of The Book of Mormon.

Fourth, you did not answer my question. Here it is again: "If The Book of Mormon is not a historical text, if it is not describing historical events, then how does one proceed to affirm one of those never-happened-because-The-Book-of-Mormon-is-not-a-historical-text events, namely, 'that Christ visited the Americas?'"

The Flood is a difficult topic. I admit that. Tradition hews more to an interpretation calling for a global, every-inch-of-dry-land-on-the-entire-planet-was-covered-with-water reading, whereas other perspectives propose that the narrative could refer to a regional/localized event.

But these do not seem to constitute questions about "historicity." That is, adherents believe that the Flood occurred (they concede its historicity), but differ in terms of the Flood's scope. I think it would be more difficult to say "I believe in The Bible, but I reject that The Flood occurred. In fact, I deny the existence of Noah. He's a fictional character." That line of reasoning seems like a slippery slope toward negation of The Bible as a factual, historical narrative of actual people and actual events.

Perhaps a more interesting question would be that of Job. See, for example, this article by John Tanner (an academic VP at BYU, or IOW an observant, believing Latter-day Saint), in which questions about the historicity of the Job narrative are addressed.  Perhaps this is the sort of analogous situation you have in mind?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 31, 2014 by smac97

[rockpond]

does the book of mormon say not to be gay? is it going to be hard for those folks to read?

 

The Book of Mormon is silent on the issue of homosexuality.

[Senator]

IMO, the Bible's historicity is not as intricately interwoven with its status as scripture as compared to the link between the historicity and the scriptural status of The Book of Mormon. The same goes for the D&C.

That's my view, anyway.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I would disagree.

 

I think the entire notion or need of a "restoration" is inextricably driven by the historicity of the "Original", or "First Testament" of Jesus Christ.

[rockpond]

Fourth, you did not answer my question. Here it is again: "If The Book of Mormon is not a historical text, if it is not describing historical events, then how does one proceed to affirm one of those never-happened-because-The-Book-of-Mormon-is-not-a-historical-text events, namely, 'that Christ visited the Americas?'"

 

The 2001 movie "Pearl Harbor" is not a true re-telling of historical events.  And yet it doesn't mean that the attack on Pearl Harbor didn't actually happen.  The Book of Mormon could be entirely fiction (though I am not of that opinion) and Christ still could have visited the Americas.

 

The Flood is a difficult topic. I admit that. Tradition hews more to an interpretation calling for a global, every-inch-of-dry-land-on-the-entire-planet-was-covered-with-water reading, whereas other perspectives propose that the narrative could refer to a regional/localized event.

But these do not seem to constitute questions about "historicity." That is, adherents believe that the Flood occurred (they concede its historicity), but differ in terms of the Flood's scope. I think it would be more difficult to say "I believe in The Bible, but I reject that The Flood occurred. In fact, I deny the existence of Noah. He's a fictional character." That line of reasoning seems like a slippery slope toward negation of The Bible as a factual, historical narrative of actual people and actual events.

Perhaps a more interesting question would be that of Job. See, for example, this article by John Tanner (an academic VP at BYU, or IOW an observant, believing Latter-day Saint), in which questions about the historicity of the Job narrative are addressed.  Perhaps this is the sort of analogous situation you have in mind?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

But do you understand how once you question a literal flood, then you are saying that the authors of Genesis took creative license or simply misunderstood the events that transpired which then leads to questioning the entire narrative?

 

I actually don't think you and I are that far apart on this.  I agree with you that once one decides that Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni never actually existed in any time or place then it requires a complete paradigm shift to find remarkable value (as you put it) in the Book of Mormon.  I know that some people are able to make that shift but I am not arguing in favor of that view.

 

Where we seem to differ is just on the use of the word "historicity".  You seem to be saying that one can believe that the flood & Noah's ark were not actually as described while still believing in the historicity of the book of Genesis.  That is an interesting perspective.  So if I say that I don't believe the Nephite/Jaredite peoples were nearly as populous as the Book of Mormon makes them out to be, am I not questioning the historicity of the Book?

[mfbukowski]

Second, interpretation of a text is a separate question from its historicity.

Third, the historicity of The Bible is a much more complex question, I think, than the historicity of The Book of Mormon.

This is where you are going wrong imo. You are begging the question right here, creating a circular argument

 

In religious texts, the subject is religious belief, not history.

 

Religious texts are about RELIGION.

 

The book of Job is exactly on point, it teaches us wonderful lessons about the trials of life, regardless of whether or not it really "happened".  Historicity is irrelevant there.

 

You never answered my question about D&C and how historicity is relevant there in making it scriptural.

 

Your lists of "lies" is irrelevant to the question of the religious value of the text.  Just as Mohammad thought he saw an angel, Joseph's religious experiences were just as valid and stand on their own, beyond anyone's judgement and verifiable only by testimony.  

 

We get to pick.  Mohammed or Joseph?

 

By their fruits you will know them.

[mfbukowski]

I would disagree.

 

I think the entire notion or need of a "restoration" is inextricably driven by the historicity of the "Original", or "First Testament" of Jesus Christ.

Notice that word Testament.

 

It means testimony.

 

It is a collection of testimonies, nothing more, nothing less.  No one can prove with history that Jesus is the Christ.

[mfbukowski]

The 2001 movie "Pearl Harbor" is not a true re-telling of historical events.  And yet it doesn't mean that the attack on Pearl Harbor didn't actually happen.  The Book of Mormon could be entirely fiction (though I am not of that opinion) and Christ still could have visited the Americas.

 

 

But do you understand how once you question a literal flood, then you are saying that the authors of Genesis took creative license or simply misunderstood the events that transpired which then leads to questioning the entire narrative?

 

I actually don't think you and I are that far apart on this.  I agree with you that once one decides that Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni never actually existed in any time or place then it requires a complete paradigm shift to find remarkable value (as you put it) in the Book of Mormon.  I know that some people are able to make that shift but I am not arguing in favor of that view.

 

Where we seem to differ is just on the use of the word "historicity".  You seem to be saying that one can believe that the flood & Noah's ark were not actually as described while still believing in the historicity of the book of Genesis.  That is an interesting perspective.  So if I say that I don't believe the Nephite/Jaredite peoples were nearly as populous as the Book of Mormon makes them out to be, am I not questioning the historicity of the Book?

I see all of these as possibilities, including the full literal interpretation of the Book of Mormon.

 

This is a very big and complicated world, and anything could have happened.

 

But for me, the answers to these questions are about as irrelevant to my faith as string theory is

[rockpond]

I see all of these as possibilities, including the full literal interpretation of the Book of Mormon.

 

This is a very big and complicated world, and anything could have happened.

 

But for me, the answers to these questions are about as irrelevant to my faith as string theory is

 

A perspective we'd all do well to adopt.

[Senator]

Notice that word Testament.

 

It means testimony.

 

It is a collection of testimonies, nothing more, nothing less.  No one can prove with history that Jesus is the Christ.

Oh I agree with you. I was addressing smac's particular assertion that the Bible's historicity was less interwoven into its status as scripture than the BofM.

Edited July 31, 2014 by Senator

[smac97]

Oh I agree with you. I was addressing smac's particular assertion that the Bible's historicity was less interwoven into its status as scripture than the BofM.

I must agree with your assessment. The historical reality of the Biblical narrative, including those events described in metaphorical or poetic terms, is an integral part of that book's claim to status as scripture. I guess what I had in mind is historicity as evidence of antiquity being interwoven with scriptural status. The Bible does not have as great a need to prove its antiquity because its ancient origins are less disputed. That is, we all know it's a really old book, so proving that it's an old book does not go far in terms of bolstering its claim as scripture, any more than proving The Iliad's ancient origins would lend credence to the reality of the Greek gods described in it. So my point should have been that historicity establishing antiquity is not particularly relevant to The Bible's claimed status as scripture. But historicity is nonetheless a vital component of the book's status as scripture, because otherwise it becomes no more valid or relevant to our salvation than The Iliad or The Epic of Gilgamesh.

On the other hand, the antiquity of The Book of Mormon is disputed. All alternative theories for its origins posit that it is of modern derivation. That it was written in the 19th century. Consequently, evidence of antiquity for The Book of Mormon would, I think, have significant probative value to its claim as scripture. Let me explain further:

The distinction I see between the two texts is the method of transmission. Speaking broadly, the Bible has a discernable historical pedigree, a pedigree wherein the text can be historically traced back, without significant gaps, to antiquity (though not necessarily to the original authors). This historical pedigree, coupled with the fact that some toponymns mentioned in the Bible are verified or verifiable...makes the Bible comparable in many ways to other ancient texts.

The rejoinder to this is that a historical pedigree + some archaeological verification does not equal evidence in favor of the Bible's truth claims. As Jacob Hamblin has previously noted, The Odyssey has a historical pedigree and some archaeological verification, but that doesn't mean that the descriptions of the supernatural in Homer's work are factual.

But what about the Book of Mormon? Could its lack of a traceable historical pedigree + some archaeological verification actually work in its favor? Skeptics aren't persuaded that the Bible's historical pedigree or archaeological finds (like the Pool of Siloam that was discovered some years ago) mean anything precisely because those things are discernable without looking to God for an explanation (just like we can discern the historical pedigree and/or archaeological verification of The Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.).

However, the Book of Mormon belies these assumptions. There is a built-in gap, a giant one, in the transmission process for that book. So if (and this is a really big "if") we someday discover persuasive archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon (evidence of toponyms, for example), then the argument used against the Bible wouldn't work.

The gap in the historical transmission of the text could only be bridged by divine intervention. So archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, if found, would have a far more persuasive impact on the veracity of that book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims.

 

So historicity as a means of bridging the transmission gap for The Book of Mormon would be significant in terms of the book's claim to status as revealed scripture.  Historicity would not seem to have the same significant effect in terms of establishing The Bible's status as revealed scripture.

 

Does any of this make sense?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

Oh I agree with you. I was addressing smac's particular assertion that the Bible's historicity was less interwoven into its status as scripture than the BofM.

And I was agreeing with you!

[mfbukowski]

I must agree with your assessment. The historical reality of the Biblical narrative, including those events described in metaphorical or poetic terms, is an integral part of that book's claim to status as scripture. I guess what I had in mind is historicity as evidence of antiquity being interwoven with scriptural status. The Bible does not have as great a need to prove its antiquity because its ancient origins are less disputed. That is, we all know it's a really old book, so proving that it's an old book does not go far in terms of bolstering its claim as scripture, any more than proving The Iliad's ancient origins would lend credence to the reality of the Greek gods described in it. So my point should have been that historicity establishing antiquity is not particularly relevant to The Bible's claimed status as scripture. But historicity is nonetheless a vital component of the book's status as scripture, because otherwise it becomes no more valid or relevant to our salvation than The Iliad or The Epic of Gilgamesh.

On the other hand, the antiquity of The Book of Mormon is disputed. All alternative theories for its origins posit that it is of modern derivation. That it was written in the 19th century. Consequently, evidence of antiquity for The Book of Mormon would, I think, have significant probative value to its claim as scripture. Let me explain further:

The distinction I see between the two texts is the method of transmission. Speaking broadly, the Bible has a discernable historical pedigree, a pedigree wherein the text can be historically traced back, without significant gaps, to antiquity (though not necessarily to the original authors). This historical pedigree, coupled with the fact that some toponymns mentioned in the Bible are verified or verifiable...makes the Bible comparable in many ways to other ancient texts.

The rejoinder to this is that a historical pedigree + some archaeological verification does not equal evidence in favor of the Bible's truth claims. As Jacob Hamblin has previously noted, The Odyssey has a historical pedigree and some archaeological verification, but that doesn't mean that the descriptions of the supernatural in Homer's work are factual.

But what about the Book of Mormon? Could its lack of a traceable historical pedigree + some archaeological verification actually work in its favor? Skeptics aren't persuaded that the Bible's historical pedigree or archaeological finds (like the Pool of Siloam that was discovered some years ago) mean anything precisely because those things are discernable without looking to God for an explanation (just like we can discern the historical pedigree and/or archaeological verification of The Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.).

However, the Book of Mormon belies these assumptions. There is a built-in gap, a giant one, in the transmission process for that book. So if (and this is a really big "if") we someday discover persuasive archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon (evidence of toponyms, for example), then the argument used against the Bible wouldn't work.

The gap in the historical transmission of the text could only be bridged by divine intervention. So archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, if found, would have a far more persuasive impact on the veracity of that book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims.

 

So historicity as a means of bridging the transmission gap for The Book of Mormon would be significant in terms of the book's claim to status as revealed scripture.  Historicity would not seem to have the same significant effect in terms of establishing The Bible's status as revealed scripture.

 

Does any of this make sense?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

It does!

 

But the bottom line is that none of this has anything to do with the VERY tenuous assertion - from a historical perspective- that someone's death on a Roman cross could erase the sins of mankind.

 

And in the final analysis, the answer to that question is all that matters.

[Bikeemikey]

It does!

But the bottom line is that none of this has anything to do with the VERY tenuous assertion - from a historical perspective- that someone's death on a Roman cross could erase the sins of mankind.

And in the final analysis, the answer to that question is all that matters.

Very well stated.

[Robert F. Smith]

Here: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/58237617-180/book-mormon-challenge-affirmation.html.csp

I find this encouraging. I think I would find little remarkable value in the precepts found in The Book of Mormon absent an concomitant belief in its historicity, so Mr. Thacker's approach of reading it "for spiritual and personal growth . . . versus 'Is the book true?'" seems flawed from the outset. But who knows what could happen. I truly hope some good comes of this effort.

Thanks,

-Smac

C. S. Lewis recalled his days as an atheist and commented that Christian literature (including the Bible) is subversive.  Look what happened to him!

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Does any of this make sense?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

It certainly does, and you are not  just talking smack.

You have stated in short compass the reason for the failure of Stephen D. Unwin, The Probability of God: A Simple Calculation that Proves the Ultimate Truth (Crown Forum, 2003), to make the case for historicity of biblical miracles.  Unwin would have been wiser to begin with the Book of Mormon (where his case is made easier by the improbable nature of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon) and extrapolating from there to the Bible.  Only on that basis could his use of the Bayes Theorem be of any use.  This is a far more important reason for terming the Book of Mormon a second witness for Christ.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

But do you understand how once you question a literal flood, then you are saying that the authors of Genesis took creative license or simply misunderstood the events that transpired which then leads to questioning the entire narrative?

 

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

If one wishes to address the biblical account of the Great Deluge, one first has to read it in Hebrew and Septuagint Greek.  One must also accept the fact that it is closely related to the more ancient Flood Stories from Sumer and Akkad.  One must look for the similarities and differences.  One must do textual and literary analysis, including punning.

 

The common notion of "a literal [worldwide] flood" may even have been accepted by some of the editors/redactors of the story.  For it was archaic already before the Hebrew language came into existence.  But what does the text actually say?

 

A key word is "land, earth," which can refer to the whole planet or to a local area or region.  It is not even clear whether Noah himself (he has other names in the earlier Sumerian and Akkadian versions) knew whether this was a regional or worldwide flood.  The text is thus open to more than one legitimate interpretation.  The late William F. Albright (and some modern Mormons) thought that the tale began with the great Pluvial rains which swept the Earth at the end of the last Ice Age (ca. 10,000 B.C.).  This is because nearly every culture worldwide has a flood story, including those cultures with no reason to worry about floods.

 

This is the way a real discussion of biblical texts can get started.

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes, I recognize that. And as deeply flawed as that position is, I welcome such persons in fellowship in the Church.

That said, my view is that rejecting the BoM's historicity necessarily requires rejecting the BoM's status as scripture. I don't think that a coherent good faith argument can be made otherwise. Consider the following (emphases added):

Elder Oaks: "There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors' declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship. ... The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived." (Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, p. 244.)

In his article "Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon," Kent P. Jackson asks, "what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?" He goes on: "Can the Book of Mormon indeed be 'true,' in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events?" (pp. 137-38)

 

I agree with these sentiments.

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

Thank you,

-Smac

 

One can readily understand this point of view as a matter of faith, and you even declare that those who don't share that faith in the historicity should be welcomed "in fellowship in the Church."

 

However, if a non-Mormon professor in a university is teaching the Quran, the Mahabharata, or the Bible as literature, must he base his course on the question of historicity?   Is this the only legitimate approach?  What of a Mormon professor in a non-Mormon university teaching such works of great beauty?

 

Can one find wisdom in Buddhist literature, or in the Analects of Confucius?  Did God spread his word far and wide in the Earth, even though some of it has become corrupted?  Was Hugh Nibley foolish to have found profound truths in ancient Egyptian literature, with which to compare the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  Are all fables equally false, or are many of them figurative and metaphorical?  What of Jesus' parables?

 

Bearing of one's testimony is not the same genre of literature as scholarly analysis.  I see no reason why one may not do both, and with all forms of literature (including those we consider unhistorical).

[smac97]

One can readily understand this point of view as a matter of faith, and you even declare that those who don't share that faith in the historicity should be welcomed "in fellowship in the Church."

However, if a non-Mormon professor in a university is teaching the Quran, the Mahabharata, or the Bible as literature, must he base his course on the question of historicity?

Nope. Analysis of scriptural texts as literature does not require a determination of historicity. I love Greco-Roman mythology, and I have never given any thought to its historicity (with the exception of The Iliad, and considerations of its historicity relative to things like Schliemann's work at Hissarlik).

My comments pertain to analysis of the text of The Book of Mormon to determine its status as revealed scripture. For me, the text simply doesn't work as inspirational fiction, any more than Christ would work as a fictional person. Christ as a real entity has real power, to preach eternal truths, to atone, to save. A fictional Christ does not.

 

Is this the only legitimate approach?  What of a Mormon professor in a non-Mormon university teaching such works of great beauty?

Have at it. There are many passages in The Book of Mormon which can and should be considered for their literary value. But that is a different question from considering the text for its salvific value. The former analysis I can take or leave. The latter is much more important.

 

Can one find wisdom in Buddhist literature, or in the Analects of Confucius?

Wisdom? Yes. Saving truths and a testimony of Christ as the sole means of salvation? No.

 

Did God spread his word far and wide in the Earth, even though some of it has become corrupted?

Yes.

 

Was Hugh Nibley foolish to have found profound truths in ancient Egyptian literature, with which to compare the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

No.

 

Are all fables equally false, or are many of them figurative and metaphorical?

Fables have value irrespective of their historicity. Christ as the Son of God and Savior of the world, on the other hand, only has value because of his historicity.

If I was in the ocean and moments away from drowning, and if a ship came sailing by and a sailor called out to me "Hey! I see you're drowning, so here is an imaginary/metaphorical life preserver! Whoosh! I hope it helps!", then I would still be in trouble. As well intentioned as the sailor may be, at that moment I need a real life preserver.

 

What of Jesus' parables?

They have tremendous value, regardless of whether they are true stories or fictional narratives intended to prove a point. Historicity doesn't matter.

But historicity does matter when we consider some other scriptural passages, such as this one: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Absent historicity, this passage has no salvific meaning or value. Jesus would be just another admirable fictional character, like Atticus Finch, or Samwise Gamgee, or Captain America. Jesus would be about as valuable to me as an imaginary life preserver would be to a drowning man.

 

Bearing of one's testimony is not the same genre of literature as scholarly analysis.  I see no reason why one may not do both, and with all forms of literature (including those we consider unhistorical).

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 1, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

The 2001 movie "Pearl Harbor" is not a true re-telling of historical events.  And yet it doesn't mean that the attack on Pearl Harbor didn't actually happen.  The Book of Mormon could be entirely fiction (though I am not of that opinion) and Christ still could have visited the Americas.

So whom did Christ visit, if not the Nephites (who, if The Book of Mormon were "entire fictional," never existed)?

And how do we overcome the Joseph-Smith-as-fraud-or-lunatic problem which arises from the "inspired fiction" theory? What do we do with the Gold Plates? With the Testimony of the Three and Eight Witnessess? With angelic visits from Moroni-the-guy-who-never-existed?

Regarding the origins of The Book of Mormon, the one proposed explanation that is harder to accept than Joseph Smith's is the "inspired fiction" meme. At least the other theories have some conceivable basis. I can see how an outsider approaching The Book of Mormon could conclude that there are only three possible explanations for the text: 1) Joseph Smith was deluded/deceived in his claims about the book, 2) Joseph Smith was dishonest/fraudulent in his claims about the book, or 3) Joseph Smith was honest/correct in his claims about the book. I simply cannot wrap my head around a fourth theory: that Joseph Smith was deluded/deceived and dishonest/fraudulent and honest/correct in his claims about the book. That makes no kind of sense whatsoever. Elder Oaks was right: "This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship."

The "inspired fiction" approach to The Book of Mormon requires a rejection of The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be. To accept it on those grounds would be like saying "Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and my Lord and Savior, even though I reject the idea that he ever actually existed." A fictional Christ does not work, and neither does a fictional Book of Mormon.

 

But do you understand how once you question a literal flood,

I don't question "a literal flood." I believe it really happened. The disputed point pertains to the scope of the flood.

 

then you are saying that the authors of Genesis took creative license

Not necessarily. There are translation and transmission issues. In Luke 2:1 we read that "there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed." As I understand it, nobody, not even Christians of the most literalist bent, read this and think "Wow, 'all the world.' How did Caesar collect taxes from the people living in the Americas?"

Some measures of linguistic and cultural understanding, context and interpretation are necessary when reading The Bible. That does not mean that we are free to believe that the entirety of The Flood narrative is fiction, but rather that we should be open to a more nuanced understanding of that narrative.

 

or simply misunderstood the events that transpired which then leads to questioning the entire narrative?

First, it is not unheard of for us to misunderstand certain aspects of an important event which happened thousands of years ago, and about which we have very limited information, and which information was originally put into writing thousands of years ago in another language, which was then transcribed over and over and over, and translated into other languages, and so on. Some garbling of the narrative is not only understandable, it is expected.

Second, I reject the baby-with-the-bathwater approach you are suggesting here. That we must either have a 100% correct, utterly pristine and accurate understanding of The Flood, or else we must reject the historicity of The Flood altogether. That is bad, bad scholarship.

Third, the "bad, bad scholarship" referenced in the preceding paragraph is at the core of the "inspired fiction" approach to The Book of Mormon. I reject that approach.

 

I actually don't think you and I are that far apart on this.  I agree with you that once one decides that Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni never actually existed in any time or place then it requires a complete paradigm shift to find remarkable value (as you put it) in the Book of Mormon.  I know that some people are able to make that shift but I am not arguing in favor of that view.

Agreed. Frankly, I think The Book of Mormon is too Christ-centered to function as "inspired fiction." It offers some broad observations about the human condition, and many of these observations would, if applied, operate to improve the lives of people regardless of whether Christ lived, whether we must have faith in him, etc. But the text's real value lies with its overarching testimony of Jesus Christ. Only then do these observations take on real, enduring, cohesive force and effect in our lives.

Allow me to present a boring parable: Yesterday I was working on a reply to a memorandum written by opposing counsel in a lawsuit. As I skimmed through opposing counsel's memo, I highlighted the parts of it which I felt require a response. I noticed afterward that almost all of the highlighting appears in the last four pages of the memo, which are the pages where opposing counsel actually made arguments based on statutes and citations to binding precedents (mostly decisions from the Utah Supreme Court and the Utah Court of Appeals). The first six or so pages of this memo consist mostly of arguments based on opposing counsel's interpretation of the disputed facts in the lawsuit. My intention next week will be to complete my reply to this memo by focusing almost entirely on the portions of the memo I have highlighted, with little or no attention paid to opposing counsel's arguments based on his own interpretation of the events in dispute. Why? Because his interpretation of events is not binding on me, or on the court. His interpretation is . . . just his interpretation. It has no force or effect (at this stage of the litigation, anyway). In contrast, when opposing counsel cites to statutes and binding precedent, then I really sit up and pay attention. I must respond to these sections because both I and the court are bound by these. Courts are obligated to adhere to statutes and precedent. So I am obligated to respond to arguments based on those precedents.

So it is with The Book of Mormon. As fiction, the book has little or no interest to me. It's just another book. It has no force or effect. It's just a pastiche of opinions, some of which are valid, some of which can be rejected without fear because the text is fictional, so it doesn't matter if I accept it or not. But if The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, if it is what Joseph Smith claimed it to be, then it becomes like the above-referenced "statutes and binding precedent." I really sit up and pay attention. I must adhere to the precepts of the book because it is binding upon me.

 

Where we seem to differ is just on the use of the word "historicity".  You seem to be saying that one can believe that the flood & Noah's ark were not actually as described while still believing in the historicity of the book of Genesis.

We can nuance and improve our understanding of The Flood without rejecting its historicity. We can see that cumulative cultural expectations, which have filtered down to us through the ages, about a global flood could be the result of a flawed popular understanding of the text. We see another instance of this every Christmas when Christians everywhere pull out Nativity Scenes which depict the visit of the Wise Men as being contemporaneous with that of the Shepherds. That is a flawed popular understanding of the text as well. That does not mean we reject the historicity of the Wise Men or the birth of Christ, but rather that we adjust and improve our understanding of these events.

 

That is an interesting perspective.  So if I say that I don't believe the Nephite/Jaredite peoples were nearly as populous as the Book of Mormon makes them out to be, am I not questioning the historicity of the Book?

No, you are not. You are not saying that the Nephite/Jaredite never existed at all, only that the text may be incorrect or misunderstood regarding their numbers. I can fully accommodate and appreciate the latter approach, but I must reject the former as being untenable.

It looks like I have been speaking about a macro approach to the historicity of The Book of Mormon, whereas perhaps you and others have been taking a micro approach. Would that be a fair statement? You started this thread by posing a hypothetical about The Book of Mormon being "entirely fiction," which is a decidedly "macro" approach to historicity, but your concluding remarks hew much closer to a "micro" approach to historicity. So I am not entirely sure where you stand on this. Perhaps you could clarify?

By the way, I am enjoying this discussion, and I very much appreciate your insights.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 2, 2014 by smac97

[rockpond]

So whom did Christ visit, if not the Nephites (who, if The Book of Mormon were "entire fictional," never existed)?

And how do we overcome the Joseph-Smith-as-fraud-or-lunatic problem which arises from the "inspired fiction" theory? What do we do with the Gold Plates? With the Testimony of the Three and Eight Witnessess? With angelic visits from Moroni-the-guy-who-never-existed?

Regarding the origins of The Book of Mormon, the one proposed explanation that is harder to accept than Joseph Smith's is the "inspired fiction" meme. At least the other theories have some conceivable basis. I can see how an outsider approaching The Book of Mormon could conclude that there are only three possible explanations for the text: 1) Joseph Smith was deluded/deceived in his claims about the book, 2) Joseph Smith was dishonest/fraudulent in his claims about the book, or 3) Joseph Smith was honest/correct in his claims about the book. I simply cannot wrap my head around a fourth theory: that Joseph Smith was deluded/deceived and dishonest/fraudulent and honest/correct in his claims about the book. That makes no kind of sense whatsoever. Elder Oaks was right: "This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship."

The "inspired fiction" approach to The Book of Mormon requires a rejection of The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be. To accept it on those grounds would be like saying "Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and my Lord and Savior, even though I reject the idea that he ever actually existed." A fictional Christ does not work, and neither does a fictional Book of Mormon.

I don't question "a literal flood." I believe it really happened. The disputed point pertains to the scope of the flood.

Not necessarily. There are translation and transmission issues. In Luke 2:1 we read that "there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed." As I understand it, nobody, not even Christians of the most literalist bent, read this and think "Wow, 'all the world.' How did Caesar collect taxes from the people living in the Americas?"

Some measures of linguistic and cultural understanding, context and interpretation are necessary when reading The Bible. That does not mean that we are free to believe that the entirety of The Flood narrative is fiction, but rather that we should be open to a more nuanced understanding of that narrative.

First, it is not unheard of for us to misunderstand certain aspects of an important event which happened thousands of years ago, and about which we have very limited information, and which information was originally put into writing thousands of years ago in another language, which was then transcribed over and over and over, and translated into other languages, and so on. Some garbling of the narrative is not only understandable, it is expected.

Second, I reject the baby-with-the-bathwater approach you are suggesting here. That we must either have a 100% correct, utterly pristine and accurate understanding of The Flood, or else we must reject the historicity of The Flood altogether. That is bad, bad scholarship.

Third, the "bad, bad scholarship" referenced in the preceding paragraph is at the core of the "inspired fiction" approach to The Book of Mormon. I reject that approach.

Agreed. Frankly, I think The Book of Mormon is too Christ-centered to function as "inspired fiction." It offers some broad observations about the human condition, and many of these observations would, if applied, operate to improve the lives of people regardless of whether Christ lived, whether we must have faith in him, etc. But the text's real value lies with its overarching testimony of Jesus Christ. Only then do these observations take on real, enduring, cohesive force and effect in our lives.

Allow me to present a boring parable: Yesterday I was working on a reply to a memorandum written by opposing counsel in a lawsuit. As I skimmed through opposing counsel's memo, I highlighted the parts of it which I felt require a response. I noticed afterward that almost all of the highlighting appears in the last four pages of the memo, which are the pages where opposing counsel actually made arguments based on statutes and citations to binding precedents (mostly decisions from the Utah Supreme Court and the Utah Court of Appeals). The first six or so pages of this memo consist mostly of arguments based on opposing counsel's interpretation of the disputed facts in the lawsuit. My intention next week will be to complete my reply to this memo by focusing almost entirely on the portions of the memo I have highlighted, with little or no attention paid to opposing counsel's arguments based on his own interpretation of the events in dispute. Why? Because his interpretation of events is not binding on me, or on the court. His interpretation is . . . just his interpretation. It has no force or effect (at this stage of the litigation, anyway). In contrast, when opposing counsel cites to statutes and binding precedent, then I really sit up and pay attention. I must respond to these sections because both I and the court are bound by these. Courts are obligated to adhere to statutes and precedent. So I am obligated to respond to arguments based on those precedents.

So it is with The Book of Mormon. As fiction, the book has little or no interest to me. It's just another book. It has no force or effect. It's just a pastiche of opinions, some of which are valid, some of which can be rejected without fear because the text is fictional, so it doesn't matter if I accept it or not. But if The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, if it is what Joseph Smith claimed it to be, then it becomes like the above-referenced "statutes and binding precedent." I really sit up and pay attention. I must adhere to the precepts of the book because it is binding upon me.

We can nuance and improve our understanding of The Flood without rejecting its historicity. We can see that cumulative cultural expectations, which have filtered down to us through the ages, about a global flood could be the result of a flawed popular understanding of the text. We see another instance of this every Christmas when Christians everywhere pull out Nativity Scenes which depict the visit of the Wise Men as being contemporaneous with that of the Shepherds. That is a flawed popular understanding of the text as well. That does not mean we reject the historicity of the Wise Men or the birth of Christ, but rather that we adjust and improve our understanding of these events.

No, you are not. You are not saying that the Nephite/Jaredite never existed at all, only that the text may be incorrect or misunderstood regarding their numbers. I can fully accommodate and appreciate the latter approach, but I must reject the former as being untenable.

It looks like I have been speaking about a macro approach to the historicity of The Book of Mormon, whereas perhaps you and others have been taking a micro approach. Would that be a fair statement? You started this thread by posing a hypothetical about The Book of Mormon being "entirely fiction," which is a decidedly "macro" approach to historicity, but your concluding remarks hew much closer to a "micro" approach to historicity. So I am not entirely sure where you stand on this. Perhaps you could clarify?

By the way, I am enjoying this discussion, and I very much appreciate your insights.

Thanks,

-Smac

My concluding remarks are most reflective of my personal beliefs.

Using your terminology, I fall into the "micro" camp. But I think my position is best described this way: I believe the Book of Mormon to be another testament of Christ. I believe that Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni existed (and still exist in the eternal sense). But I think we err whenever we try to read the Book of Mormon (or the Bible) as a history book rather than the spiritually didactic text that it was written as.

Edited August 2, 2014 by rockpond