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

[Tiki]

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

17 And she again conceived and bare his brother Abel. And Abel hearkened unto the voice of the Lord. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

18 And Cain loved Satan more than God. And Satan commanded him, saying: READ THE BOOK OF MORMON DAILY

19 And in process of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.

20 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering;

21 But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect. Now Satan knew this, and it pleased him. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

You keep the commandments due to obedience to the Lord, not to a faithless-based organization.

 

This is extreme. You are out of another thread.

[Bikeemikey]

Smac,

There is a large gulf fictional literature and historical text.

It is entirely possible for the Book of Mormon to be neither historical fact or fictional literature.

[smac97]

Smac,

There is a large gulf fictional literature and historical text.

It is entirely possible for the Book of Mormon to be neither historical fact or fictional literature.

Can you expound on this? I am not sure I understand your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

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.

I agree, except that I do not think we are faced with an either/or conundrum. Historicity is a buttress to, not a replacement for, the spiritual/religious value of the text.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

Can you expound on this? I am not sure I understand your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

All one has to do is change Nephi's name to Ralph to fulfill these requirements.

[Bikeemikey]

Can you expound on this? I am not sure I understand your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

Mfbukowski already made a comment inline with my thoughts.

The general theme is that myth and allegory are not simply fiction, neither are they history.

Animal Farm is a good example of this. It is history cloaked in fable cloaked in fiction.

There are many examples of this.

The BOM could also have been an epic narrative of the time with both some historical, some allegorical and some fictional content.

[mfbukowski]

Mfbukowski already made a comment inline with my thoughts.

The general theme is that myth and allegory are not simply fiction, neither are they history.

Animal Farm is a good example of this. It is history cloaked in fable cloaked in fiction.

There are many examples of this.

The BOM could also have been an epic narrative of the time with both some historical, some allegorical and some fictional content.

It becomes a question of degree.

 

What if the translation is incorrect in any degree?  At what point is the book no longer "true"?

 

What if the historical facts are incorrect by any degree?  Suppose the dates are off.  Suppose the Jaredite barges were actually sail boats?   Suppose some of the population numbers are incorrect, the distances are incorrect, the directions are incorrect?

 

Suppose Lehi's dream did not really happen to Lehi, but was a legend passed down to Nephi, or suppose Nephi got the report wrong- it was actually Lehi's grandfather who had the dream?

 

Suppose any portion of it is allegorical?

 

Obviously one could go through it sentence by sentence and examine every fact, every statement, every date, time, every nuance of meaning?

 

How many errors do we allow before the book is no longer "historical"?

 

But of course we would be on solid ground in believing that NONE of these things are incorrect, that every single word is exactly what it should be, that there are no misunderstandings or mistranslations anywhere.

 

We could believe this because there will never be evidence to the contrary!      But wait.

 

Perhaps there will never be evidence corroborating a single word of any of it?

 

The result would be exactly the same!!   It could be exactly true in every word, or it could be a total fabrication, or anything in between and NOTHING ABOUT OUR BELIEFS WOULD CHANGE.

 

For some of us it is of central importance to "believe" that it is exactly historically correct in every particular.

 

For some of us, we don't care if it exactly historically correct at all.

 

The bottom line, is that for all of us who call ourselves "Mormons" and accept the book as scripture- the belief that counts is that "The Book of Mormon is TRUE"

 

We can argue all day all week, and for the rest of our lives about what those words mean, but it won't make a shred of difference in anyone's life if anyone is ultimately "Correct" about any of it, BECAUSE WE WILL NEVER KNOW IN THIS LIFE, at least not in an objective, historical sense.

 

The results of the debate are unknowable.  Period.  End of Story.  It doesn't matter!

 

Some take comfort in it being historically exact, some don't.

 

That's about all that there is to be said about it.

[smac97]

Mfbukowski already made a comment inline with my thoughts.

I did not understand his comment.

The general theme is that myth and allegory are not simply fiction, neither are they history.

Animal Farm is a good example of this. It is history cloaked in fable cloaked in fiction.

I would disagree that Animal Farm is "history" in any meaningful sense. It is a satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution, yes. But it is fiction. Snowball and Napoleon are fictional. They respectively represent Trotsky/Lenin and Stalin, but they are allegorical depictions.

In contrast, Lehi is presented as a real, historical person, not as a allegorical one. Joseph Smith was tutored by his son, Nephi, in angelic form, and by his later descendant, Moroni, and by other historical figures from The Book of Mormon.

So how does The Book of Mormon work as allegory? Do you propose that Lehi was a fictional, non-historical person, along with all of his descendants, their civilizations, their histories, etc.?

There are many examples of this.

The BOM could also have been an epic narrative of the time with both some historical, some allegorical and some fictional content.

Okay. So which events/places/people in the historical narrative in the text are possibly fictional/allegorical?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 3, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

It becomes a question of degree.

With respect, I do not agree. Reading The Book of Mormon as "inspired fiction" versus reading it as a text describing actual people and actual events (IOW, a text with historicity) is not a "question of degree." Either Lehi existed (as in the "historicity" paradigm) or he did not (in the "inspired fiction" paradigm). There does not seem to be much room to conflate the two paradigms.

 

What if the translation is incorrect in any degree?  At what point is the book no longer "true"?

Errors in translation of a text is a separate question from the historicity of the text.

 

What if the historical facts are incorrect by any degree?

The text itself does not claim to be correct, so we must assume there is some degree of error. In the text currently found in Mosiah 21:28 of the Book of Mormon, the 1830 edition reads "Benjamin", while all subsequent editions read "Mosiah." Likewise, a reference to Benjamin in what is now Ether 4:1 was changed to "Mosiah" in 1849. As this FAIR article put it: "The use of the proper name "Benjamin" in the two instances described may represent either an abridgment error on the part of Mormon and Moroni, or it may be a legitimate description of what Ammon actually said to King Limhi based upon his current knowledge of the situation in Zarahemla. The Prophet apparently noted a possible discrepancy based upon his reading of the text, and changed the name 'Benjamin' to 'Mosiah.'"

But what does that have to do with historicity? We get errors in history all the time.  Here's an article I recently read of "myths and misconceptions" about World War I.  We could discuss these at length, but that's a separate question of the historicity of World War I.  It really happened.  The persons who took part in its events really lived.  We may have some misconceptions about the particulars, but those misconceptions do not translate into a question of historicity of World War I.

 

Suppose the dates are off.

That could happen. But how does that present a question of historicity? How does that related to The Book of Mormon as "inspired fiction?"

 

Suppose the Jaredite barges were actually sail boats?

Upon what basis would we suppose such a thing? Sheer speculation is not my thing.

 

Suppose some of the population numbers are incorrect, the distances are incorrect, the directions are incorrect?

Some errors in the text are possible.

 

Suppose Lehi's dream did not really happen to Lehi, but was a legend passed down to Nephi, or suppose Nephi got the report wrong- it was actually Lehi's grandfather who had the dream?

First, upon what basis would we suppose such a thing?

Second, 1 Nephi 8 presents the transmission of the dream as directly from Lehi to Nephi, so your hypothetical requires us to disregard the text in favor of a contrary version of the events described. Why would we go along with such a thing?

 

Suppose any portion of it is allegorical?

What portion?

 

Obviously one could go through it sentence by sentence and examine every fact, every statement, every date, time, every nuance of meaning?

One needn't do that in order to determine the historicity of The Book or Mormon. Either Lehi existed as an actual, historical person, or he did not.

 

More in the next post.

[smac97]

Continued from the previous post.

How many errors do we allow before the book is no longer "historical"?

That is not a question germane to historicity. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire may have errors in it, but that doesn't convert it to allegory, nor does it affect the historicity of Romans. Those folks really did exist. And mistakes by Edward Gibbon will not somehow make the Romans fictional.

The Book of Mormon is either historical, or it is not. Errors in The Book of Mormon will not somehow change it from historical to fiction, so there is no way to answer a question about errors in The Book of Mormon making it "no longer 'historical.'"

 

But of course we would be on solid ground in believing that NONE of these things are incorrect, that every single word is exactly what it should be, that there are no misunderstandings or mistranslations anywhere.

No, we wouldn't be on solid ground. The Title Page allows for errors ("And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men..."), as does Mormon 8:17 ("And if there be faults they be the faults of a man...") and Ether 12:23 ("And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing..."). Mormon 8:12 specifically concedes that errors exist in it ("And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it..."). The same goes for Mormon 9:33.

So why would we impute characteristics onto the text which the text itself specifically rejects?

 

We could believe this because there will never be evidence to the contrary!      But wait.

 

Perhaps there will never be evidence corroborating a single word of any of it?

 

The result would be exactly the same!!   It could be exactly true in every word, or it could be a total fabrication, or anything in between and NOTHING ABOUT OUR BELIEFS WOULD CHANGE.

I don't understand the foregoing statements.

 

For some of us it is of central importance to "believe" that it is exactly historically correct in every particular.

Which people are you talking about here? Certainly not me.

 

For some of us, we don't care if it exactly historically correct at all.

We seem to have very different understandings of the word "historicity." I have never claimed that historicity means "exactly historically correct."

 

The bottom line, is that for all of us who call ourselves "Mormons" and accept the book as scripture- the belief that counts is that "The Book of Mormon is TRUE"

I agree with this sentiment. I am not sure why you would think that I do not.

 

We can argue all day all week, and for the rest of our lives about what those words mean, but it won't make a shred of difference in anyone's life if anyone is ultimately "Correct" about any of it, BECAUSE WE WILL NEVER KNOW IN THIS LIFE, at least not in an objective, historical sense.

 

The results of the debate are unknowable.  Period.  End of Story.  It doesn't matter!

I think historicity matters. A lot. As I have said previously, a fictional Christ does not work, and neither does a fictional Book of Mormon.

And I don't think we need to "know . . . in an objective, historical sense" that The Book of Mormon has historicity, but I think we need to make a determination to some extent, just like we need to make a determination about the historicity of Jesus Christ. Both determinations will, I think, be based on faith.

 

Some take comfort in it being historically exact, some don't.

A determination affirming the historicity of The Book of Mormon does not require a determination that it is "historically exact."

 

That's about all that there is to be said about it.

Well, okay then.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

A person believes that it is an historical fact that Zylon of Org lived on a planet across the galaxy and that this individual died on that planet for all the sins of all in the universe, and in his heart, the effects of that belief is that his sins are forgiven and he leads a joyful life.  He believes that Hocum is a being like himself, but infinitely above him in powers and abilities, and that Zylon was his Son who sacrificed himself through death by fire so that all could gain eternal salvation.  Through that sacrifice and counting on the grace of the atonement of Zylon, the person believes that he will one day potentially be exalted in the Kuarkian Kingdom and become like Hocum.

 

He also believes his record- believed to be historical- that his planet was colonized by other beings like himself who originated on the planet Org, but came to his planet, Krypton, on relatively primitive vessels bringing records with them about believers in the savior Zylon.  Later, Zylon himself, in resurrected form, according to the records, visited his planet Krypton and then ministered among his people, then returned to Org.

 

There is no other evidence of the existence of the planet Org, or Zylon, but there is also no evidence against their existence either.  Many people on his planet have believed these principles for thousands of years.

 

Could this person be saved in the celestial kingdom?  Why or why not?

 

Let's keep in mind that others on other planets may believe in Jesus Christ, and perhaps they know him by different names.   We know that his atonement here was an infinite atonement.

 

Is this person's understanding of the gospel based on "history" or not?   Does it matter?

[mfbukowski]

We seem to have very different understandings of the word "historicity." I have never claimed that historicity means "exactly historically correct."

Well then what the heck DOES it mean? How wrong does it get to be and still be "historical"?

[smac97]

A person believes that it is an historical fact that Zylon of Org lived on a planet across the galaxy and that this individual died on that planet for all the sins of all in the universe, and in his heart, the effects of that belief is that his sins are forgiven and he leads a joyful life.  He believes that Hocum is a being like himself, but infinitely above him in powers and abilities, and that Zylon was his Son who sacrificed himself through death by fire so that all could gain eternal salvation.  Through that sacrifice and counting on the grace of the atonement of Zylon, the person believes that he will one day potentially be exalted in the Kuarkian Kingdom and become like Hocum.

 

He also believes his record- believed to be historical- that his planet was colonized by other beings like himself who originated on the planet Org, but came to his planet, Krypton, on relatively primitive vessels bringing records with them about believers in the savior Zylon.  Later, Zylon himself, in resurrected form, according to the records, visited his planet Krypton and then ministered among his people, then returned to Org.

 

There is no other evidence of the existence of the planet Org, or Zylon, but there is also no evidence against their existence either.  Many people on his planet have believed these principles for thousands of years.

 

Could this person be saved in the celestial kingdom?  Why or why not?

 

Let's keep in mind that others on other planets may believe in Jesus Christ, and perhaps they know him by different names.   We know that his atonement here was an infinite atonement.

 

Is this person's understanding of the gospel based on "history" or not?   Does it matter?

"Zylon of Org?"

"No other evidence of the existence of the planet Org, or Zylon?"

I thought this was a good faith discussion. I see now it is not, so I will withdraw from it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 3, 2014 by smac97

[strappinglad]

:mfb's post was metaphorical, or allegorical, or parabolic, or inspired fiction.

 

 mfb also has a point  . If Christ's death and resurrection and the application of the atonement was to apply to more than one planet, such events would not be ' historical' to those other planets in the sense that they didn't  happen on those planets. I suppose it could be said that Christ was not historical to the Pygmies, or the Inuit, or most Chinese.

Edited August 3, 2014 by strappinglad

[mfbukowski]

"Zylon of Org?"

"No other evidence of the existence of the planet Org, or Zylon?"

I thought this was a good faith discussion. I see now it is not, so I will withdraw from it.

Thanks,

-Smac

So you can't even change names and situations with the exact same outcome?

Clearly you don't have to withdraw from it- you have no idea what I am even talking about, I will withdraw for you.

Literalism will take you only so far. I wish you well.

[mfbukowski]

:mfb's post was metaphorical, or allegorical, or parabolic, or inspired fiction.

 

 mfb also has a point  . If Christ's death and resurrection and the application of the atonement was to apply to more than one planet, such events would not be ' historical' to those other planets in the sense that they didn't  happen on those planets. I suppose it could be said that Christ was not historical to the Pygmies, or the Inuit, or most Chinese.

Really all I did was change the names, and circumstances by making the voyages interplanetary instead of across the Atlantic. The message is still exactly the same.

[smac97]

So you can't even change names and situations with the exact same outcome?

I thought this was a good faith discussion. I see now it is not.

Clearly you don't have to withdraw from it- you have no idea what I am even talking about, I will withdraw for you.

I was trying to understand your position, up to a point. Further effort would futile, I think. And I can withdraw for myself, thanks.

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

I find this really troubling.

Would someone please explain this to me because I honestly do not get it, or how this is a rational belief:

For the Book of Mormon to be "true" it must be historically accurate.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate.

Therefore:- What?

[Bikeemikey]

I find this really troubling.

Would someone please explain this to me because I honestly do not get it, or how this is a rational belief:

For the Book of Mormon to be "true" it must be historically accurate.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate.

Therefore:- What?

Those who believe it must be historical also believe that they have evidence for its historicity.

They don't agree that there is no evidence.

[Bikeemikey]

I thought this was a good faith discussion. I see now it is not.

I was trying to understand your position, up to a point. Further effort would futile, I think. And I can withdraw for myself, thanks.

-Smac

It's disappointing that you won't engage in this discussion.

Our belief provides the value and meaning our religion provides us. Not evidence, and not historicity.

It is clear you totally misunderstand the points that have been made.

[smac97]

It's disappointing that you won't engage in this discussion.

I have a long track record of not being shy about voicing my opinions or engaging the opinions of others with which I may disagree. But when I discern a discussion that is not being conducted in good faith, I withdraw. There is no value for me in such discussions.

But withdrawing from discussion with mfbukowski doesn't necessarily require withdrawal from the thread altogether.

 

Our belief provides the value and meaning our religion provides us. Not evidence, and not historicity.

I do not believe this. Our belief is not, or at least should not be, blind. Faith is supposed to be informed. I do not think faith in a fictional Christ is much of a faith at all. If I have a legal problem, I can't call Atticus Finch and ask him to represent me, because he never existed. Harper Lee put some sage words in his mouth, but apart from those I cannot hope to receive any real help from a a fictional person. So it is with a fictional Savior. So it is with a fictional Book of Mormon. Christ and the testaments about Him have value precisely because Christ really exists, because He really is the Son of God, because He really did atone for our sins, and because He really can and will save us.

My faith is not blind. It is not ignorant. It is informed by evidence, principally the confirmation of the Spirit. For me, historicity is an essential component of my faith. I think Elder Oaks agrees with me. So, for that matter, does Joseph Smith, who said (emphases added): "Let us here observe that three things are necessary for any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation. First, the idea that he actually exists; Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes; Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will."

The historicity of God, the "idea that he actually exists," is a dealmaker for me.  The absence of it is a dealbreaker.

 

It is clear you totally misunderstand the points that have been made.

That may be. I am not the smartest person around, but neither am I the dumbest. I am a reasonably intelligent person, and I am reasonably well-informed about the matters under discussion. I have no qualms with being educated by others. That is why I am here. But I will not participate in discussions that lack good faith.

Thank you,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

Those who believe it must be historical also believe that they have evidence for its historicity.

They don't agree that there is no evidence.

Yes I sort of knew that, thanks.

I have been sort of in denial that people actually believed that. Even before I joined the church, I could not conceive that the bible had historical evidence so it is hard for me to even conceive of reality this way. I find it a very vulnerable and scary position. No wonder we lose so many members.

Sigh.

[mfbukowski]

Let me just emphasize further that which has been emphasized already.

"Let us here observe that three things are necessary for any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation. First, the IDEA that he actually exists; Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes; Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will."

I have the IDEA that Jesus was the Christ- really- that the Book of Mormon peoples lived as the BOM says they live, but I have absolutely no delusions about the importance of the historicity of any of that.

 

I have faith that it all "actually happened", but my life would not change one iota if tomorrow we went back in a time machine and "disproved" all of it.

 

Of course I have subscribed to philosophical beliefs which have changed my life, and are incapable of being "proven" anyway, so perhaps I am spoiled by the idea that IDEAS are what matter, not some other persons garbled account of what he THINKS MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED.

 

I find it incredibly powerful motivation in the idea that I should be the best human being I can be because God is like me in some way, yet infinitely above me.

 

That is an incredibly powerful belief all on its own, which is life changing.

 

It find it incredibly powerful to believe that all the wrong I have done in this life can be taken away through repentance- that somehow- however- that if I really do my best to make things as right as I can, that God will take away those sins and not count them against me.

 

That in itself is an incredibly powerful belief which is life changing.

 

The idea that God communicates with man and that we can have a prophet to guide and lead us in this turbulent universe is incredibly powerful in itself, and is life changing.

 

The idea that I can serve others and help them by giving them blessings and counsel to help them get closer to their creator is an incredibly life changing belief in itself.

 

When it gets to motivations and reasons for things, history becomes hearsay.   Just google "history not objective" for volumes that have been written on this subject.

 

What objective evidence is there for the "character perfections and attributes" of God?

 

NONE!

 

So what supposed historicity gives, it takes away in the next phrase.  If there is NO HISTORICAL evidence (except hearsay from a 14 year old boy) about God's attributes, why on earth should we believe it??

 

And how do we get ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE  that the Mormon course is the one God wants us to pursue?  Surely there must be some objective evidence for that right?

 

NO!   We have Moroni 10:4 and Alma 32- NOT objective evidence of any kind, but feelings in our heart!

 

So we ASSUME that we have "objective historical evidence" for the BOM, and then BASE OUR ALLEGEDLY OBJECTIVE ARGUMENT on the melting butter foundation of feelings in our heart about the attributes of God and whether or not God has told us  "that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will"

 

So we base the most important part of argument in favor of the church and the truth of the BOM on the melted butter foundation of warmth in our hearts, and then insist that we have firm evidence for the historicity of the BOM, which is somehow supposed to be the kingpin of the argument?

 

Sorry, I find that approach confused.

 

It's got to be testimony all the way down.  None of it will stand up in court anyway- we might as well admit it and get on with the defense of that position rather than wasting resources defending silliness.
 

Edited August 3, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

But I will not participate in discussions that lack good faith.

Where is your evidence that my discussion lacks good faith?

 

That is all in your head- your interpretation.

 

But after all, there are no facts, just interpretations.

[tonie]

If fiction can not inspire faith, then are the parables spoken by Christ empty words?