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

[mfbukowski]

The same goes for the D&C.

Not sure I follow that part.  Could you elaborate?

[CA Steve]

Well, the single sourcing of the Book of Mormon (compiled by Mormon, handed off to Moroni) along with the basic narrative does tend to lead toward a requirement that it is all historical or not at all.  But, it does not mean that a 1,000 year history carved into metal plates by a number of different people must be viewed as historically accurate.

 

I think that if an ahistorical Book of Mormon undermines the claims of the church then it is because we (the church) have created such a dependency.

As opposed to the Bible, there does not appear to be parts that stand out as myth versus what is historical in the Book of Mormon. Additionally the care and keeping of the records from which Mormon compiled the book is an unbroken chain of prophets called by God and specifically trained in a writing a language unknown to the general population. The prophetic literacy in reformed Egyptian alone argues strongly for an unbroken chain of historical events. I am not even sure what positing a portion of the book being myth even accomplishes? In the end the parts which tie Joseph Smith directly to the Book of Mormon, both within the book in the form of prophecy and the narrative surrounding how he produced it, rely on historical truths. It hardly seems likely that God would have taken the measures he did to get the book to Joseph and at the same time allowed it to include parts that never happened.

I believe that the dependency on the historicity of the book ties directly to how it was produced.

[smac97]

Yes.  Absolutely.

 

 

I wouldn't go so far as to call it ultimately unnecessary without historicity.  One could still receive a spiritual witness of the principles taught within the book without believing that the characters really existed (or really visited the American continent).

Fair enough. But I think an affirmative denial of the book's historicity will, sooner or later, become fatal to a testimony of the book. Ambivalence about historicity is perhaps possible, but affirmative denial is, I think, not compatible with an enduring and efficacious testimony of the book.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

As opposed to the Bible, there does not appear to be parts that stand out as myth versus what is historical in the Book of Mormon. Additionally the care and keeping of the records from which Mormon compiled the book is an unbroken chain of prophets called by God and specifically trained in a writing a language unknown to the general population. The prophetic literacy in reformed Egyptian alone argues strongly for an unbroken chain of historical events. I am not even sure what positing a portion of the book being myth even accomplishes? In the end the parts which tie Joseph Smith directly to the Book of Mormon, both within the book in the form of prophecy and the narrative surrounding how he produced it, rely on historical truths. It hardly seems likely that God would have taken the measures he did to get the book to Joseph and at the same time allowed it to include parts that never happened.

I believe that the dependency on the historicity of the book ties directly to how it was produced.

 

There is disagreement among active faithful LDS regarding things like creation vs. evolution and whether or not the global flood should be taken literally.  So when you say that there are parts of the Bible that stand out as myth, already you're taking a controversial position.

 

Your assumptions about an unbroken chain of prophetic literacy in reformed egyptian are not something I am on board with.  It can not be proven either way.  The narrative of how the Prophet Joseph produced the Book of Mormon includes the fact that he didn't actually translate directly from all of the pages.  If reformed egyptian was a language that the Prophet Joseph could neither read nor write, rather he received the text through seer stones and the power of God, then we don't really know much about the literacy of the men who carved into the metal plates.

[smac97]

I think I see what's going on here.

 

Affirmation is starting a subversive campaign to get people to associate daily reading of The Book of Mormon with being "gay".  If they succeed, then everyone who regularly reads The Book of Mormon can be accused of engaging in homosexual behavior.  

 

 Pretty sneaky.

I'm not sure if this intended as a dig at me, but if so I reject the accusation. I ascribe no ulterior motives to Affirmation in relation to the project described in the OP.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

Fair enough. But I think an affirmative denial of the book's historicity will, sooner or later, become fatal to a testimony of the book. Ambivalence about historicity is perhaps possible, but affirmative denial is, I think, not compatible with an enduring and efficacious testimony of the book.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Fortunately, a belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is not a requirement for saving ordinance work.  We've got some wiggle room to deal with these issues.  

[Avatar4321]

I think I see what's going on here.

 

Affirmation is starting a subversive campaign to get people to associate daily reading of The Book of Mormon with being "gay".  If they succeed, then everyone who regularly reads The Book of Mormon can be accused of engaging in homosexual behavior.  

 

 Pretty sneaky.

 

They dont need to do that. Reading the Book of Mormon daily does help people be gay. And by gay I mean happy:)

[CA Steve]

There is disagreement among active faithful LDS regarding things like creation vs. evolution and whether or not the global flood should be taken literally.  So when you say that there are parts of the Bible that stand out as myth, already you're taking a controversial position.

 

 

Which is why I phrased my comment "Many people can accept that parts of the Bible are myths and parts are historically accurate." I realize others cannot but it seems that more and more members are comfortable with parts of the Bible being myth and others are not.

 

Your assumptions about an unbroken chain of prophetic literacy in reformed egyptian are not something I am on board with.  It can not be proven either way.  The narrative of how the Prophet Joseph produced the Book of Mormon includes the fact that he didn't actually translate directly from all of the pages.  If reformed egyptian was a language that the Prophet Joseph could neither read nor write, rather he received the text through seer stones and the power of God, then we don't really know much about the literacy of the men who carved into the metal plates.

Certainly you are not suggesting that the Book of Mormon prophets or scribes who actually inscribed the metal plates were unable to read what they were writing?

[rockpond]

Which is why I phrased my comment "Many people can accept that parts of the Bible are myths and parts are historically accurate." I realize others cannot but it seems that more and more members are comfortable with parts of the Bible being myth and others are not.

 

And could that same type of sentiment lead some members to also believe that certain elements of the Book of Mormon are not historically accurate?

 

Certainly you are not suggesting that the Book of Mormon prophets or scribes who actually inscribed the metal plates were unable to read what they were writing?

 

What I'm suggesting is that what the Prophet described as "reformed egyptian" is not a known or defined language.  We don't know how rigidly Book of Mormon authors, editors, and narrators stuck to language conventions.  We do know that Joseph Smith didn't actually translate directly from all the pages (i.e. he wasn't sitting there reading "reformed egyptian").  So I challenge your statement:  "The prophetic literacy in reformed Egyptian alone argues strongly for an unbroken chain of historical events."  The prophetic literacy of which you speak is a matter of faith, not fact.

[smac97]

Fortunately, a belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is not a requirement for saving ordinance work.  We've got some wiggle room to deal with these issues.  

I agree with you. While my faith in The Book of Mormon could not function in a construct which rejects the book's historicity, there appear to be people who can make such a construct work for them. If so, that's a good thing for the time being. While such a construct may eventually devolve owing to its inherent flaws, it may work well enough for some people to remain in the fold.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

And could that same type of sentiment lead some members to also believe that certain elements of the Book of Mormon are not historically accurate?

I think "historicity" is a broader concept that "historically accurate." That said, which elements do you have in mind as being "not historically accurate?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

The article says:  

"What makes this challenge different, though, is that it was issued not by LDS Church headquarters but from Affirmation, a support group for gay Mormons that many church members presume is opposed to the faith."

 

I have never thought nor presumed this. Where did they get their information?

[CA Steve]

And could that same type of sentiment lead some members to also believe that certain elements of the Book of Mormon are not historically accurate?

 

No, for the reasons I have stated above. Historicity is tied into the production of the book itself. I cannot see how one can arbitrarily separate the production of the book from what it says. In the case of the Bible its production argues against historicity, at least if one is to believe scholarly theories such as the documentary hypotheses.

 

 

 

What I'm suggesting is that what the Prophet described as "reformed egyptian" is not a known or defined language.  We don't know how rigidly Book of Mormon authors, editors, and narrators stuck to language conventions.  We do know that Joseph Smith didn't actually translate directly from all the pages (i.e. he wasn't sitting there reading "reformed egyptian").  So I challenge your statement:  "The prophetic literacy in reformed Egyptian alone argues strongly for an unbroken chain of historical events."  The prophetic literacy of which you speak is a matter of faith, not fact.

How can one write without being able to read what one is writing, regardless of conventions?

Why keep a written record when no one can read it, not even the person who is writing it?

 

 

It is an interesting side discussion Rockpond, but rather than derail this thread anymore, maybe you could start another thread on it, if you are in a mood to continue.

[smac97]

The article says:  

"What makes this challenge different, though, is that it was issued not by LDS Church headquarters but from Affirmation, a support group for gay Mormons that many church members presume is opposed to the faith."

 

I have never thought nor presumed this. Where did they get their information?

I did. Here's one example why: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59765-dating-website-for-mormons-with-same-sex-attraction/

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bikeemikey]

Well, the single sourcing of the Book of Mormon (compiled by Mormon, handed off to Moroni) along with the basic narrative does tend to lead toward a requirement that it is all historical or not at all. But, it does not mean that a 1,000 year history carved into metal plates by a number of different people must be viewed as historically accurate.

I think that if an ahistorical Book of Mormon undermines the claims of the church then it is because we (the church) have created such a dependency.

This is the central issue. The historicity of the BOM is only as important as the Church (and individual members) require it to be.

With the movement in the church understanding of the process of "translating" the Book of Abraham it is not required that there is a necessary equivalency between the original "manuscript" and the final revealed scripture. Afterall Joseph Smith spent most of his time translating not even looking at the plates. The church is now actively promoting the papyrus from which the book of abraham was revealed may have simply been a catalyst that created the context which allowed JS to translate as a possible option.

We dont know the first thing about revelation and prophetic process. We assume it requires historical authenticity but really, Jesus taught in stories, not historical facts.

[rockpond]

I think "historicity" is a broader concept that "historically accurate." That said, which elements do you have in mind as being "not historically accurate?"

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I agree but "historically accurate" was the term that CA Steve had used.

 

Here's one example... if we've reached a place where faithful church members can doubt a literal global flood, have we also reached a place where members can doubt some of the population figures in the Book of Mormon while still professing a belief in its divine origin?  Is there room for someone to believe the Book of Mormon is true but say, for example, that they believe the Nephite/Lamanite/Jaredite populations were far smaller than indicated... chalk it up to language/translation errors?

[rockpond]

The article says:  

"What makes this challenge different, though, is that it was issued not by LDS Church headquarters but from Affirmation, a support group for gay Mormons that many church members presume is opposed to the faith."

 

I have never thought nor presumed this. Where did they get their information?

 

Maybe from talking to many average members who believe anyone who supports gay marriage is "opposed to the faith".  I'm frequently told that as a result of my positions/beliefs and yet I still find myself seated on the right hand of the Bishop each Sunday.  So odd how that works.  

[rockpond]

No, for the reasons I have stated above. Historicity is tied into the production of the book itself. I cannot see how one can arbitrarily separate the production of the book from what it says. In the case of the Bible its production argues against historicity, at least if one is to believe scholarly theories such as the documentary hypotheses.

 

How can one write without being able to read what one is writing, regardless of conventions?

Why keep a written record when no one can read it, not even the person who is writing it?

 

 

It is an interesting side discussion Rockpond, but rather than derail this thread anymore, maybe you could start another thread on it, if you are in a mood to continue.

 

If one believes some scholarly theories - the production of the Book of Mormon also argues against historicity.  Sorry, I just can't get on board with this line of thinking.

 

Maybe Mormon was multi-lingual and/or understood all the different dialects.  Maybe he used the Urim & Thummim.  Lots of possibilities.

[mfbukowski]

Fair enough. But I think an affirmative denial of the book's historicity will, sooner or later, become fatal to a testimony of the book. Ambivalence about historicity is perhaps possible, but affirmative denial is, I think, not compatible with an enduring and efficacious testimony of the book.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well of course we know that an outright denial of the possibility of historicity in some sense would be impossible to prove.

 

I can't imagine anyone who has thought it through, taking that position.

 

This is a complicated world, and we know very little about all the possibilities that might have happened during human history to all the billions of people who have ever lived.

 

We can't prove that bigfoot or ancient astronauts, or pretty much anything anyone, crackpot or otherwise, thinks "actually happened" in the past absolutely never happened.

 

So in that sense at the very least, BOM historicity will always be a possibility.   We now have the view that the Nephites lived amid the Maya as a subculture and so their presence has not yet been noted in the Mayan history known so far.  That is a known scholarly opinion among Mormon scholars.

 

That's a possibility that is completely non-falsifiable, so I don't think the idea of historicity is really under any threat.   We can hold that belief as long as we want to.

 

As I think you are pointing out, perhaps without intending to do so, is that the belief in historicity is itself more important than historicity itself.

 

But as a total skeptic and therefore a mystic in religious matters- because I believe that they have nothing to do with any possible empirical evidence- I have no problem with the idea that the BOM is not "historical" even though that opinion itself is not falsifiable.

 

I have faith in the non-historicity of the BOM, even though I know spiritually that it is "true".  How's that for an apparent contradiction?

 

The fact is, no  one can prove it either way so either position is faith-based in my opinion.   I choose to follow what I think that God has told me- and so cannot doubt- that it is historical, and spiritual and morally true.

[mfbukowski]

This is the central issue. The historicity of the BOM is only as important as the Church (and individual members) require it to be.

With the movement in the church understanding of the process of "translating" the Book of Abraham it is not required that there is a necessary equivalency between the original "manuscript" and the final revealed scripture. Afterall Joseph Smith spent most of his time translating not even looking at the plates. The church is now actively promoting the papyrus from which the book of abraham was revealed may have simply been a catalyst that created the context which allowed JS to translate as a possible option.

We dont know the first thing about revelation and prophetic process. We assume it requires historical authenticity but really, Jesus taught in stories, not historical facts.

The mills of the brethren grind slowly but they grind exceedingly fine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retribution_%28poem%29

[smac97]

This is the central issue. The historicity of the BOM is only as important as the Church (and individual members) require it to be.

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

[smac97]

I agree but "historically accurate" was the term that CA Steve had used.

 

Here's one example... if we've reached a place where faithful church members can doubt a literal global flood, have we also reached a place where members can doubt some of the population figures in the Book of Mormon while still professing a belief in its divine origin?  Is there room for someone to believe the Book of Mormon is true but say, for example, that they believe the Nephite/Lamanite/Jaredite populations were far smaller than indicated... chalk it up to language/translation errors?

I was speaking of The Book of Mormon. What examples can you point to from that text as potentially not being "historically accurate?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

I agree but "historically accurate" was the term that CA Steve had used.

 

Here's one example... if we've reached a place where faithful church members can doubt a literal global flood, have we also reached a place where members can doubt some of the population figures in the Book of Mormon while still professing a belief in its divine origin?  Is there room for someone to believe the Book of Mormon is true but say, for example, that they believe the Nephite/Lamanite/Jaredite populations were far smaller than indicated... chalk it up to language/translation errors?

Or just plain exaggeration due to absence of real records.  If they lived among the Maya as is now believed, there probably are no records which could corroborate - or falsify- it either way.

[mfbukowski]

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

Correct.

 

IF YOU KNEW THAT.

 

But you don't, and can never know it for sure.

 

What brings you peace is your BELIEF and testimony- not the facts that you could not possibly verify.

 

I find it very handy to have been an atheist and lived without belief in anything.

 

It is so refreshing to have a trust in God that no facts can possibly shake.

Edited July 30, 2014 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

I was speaking of The Book of Mormon. What examples can you point to from that text as potentially not being "historically accurate?"

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I gave one in the post you responded to:  "...have we also reached a place where members can doubt some of the population figures in the Book of Mormon while still professing a belief in its divine origin?  Is there room for someone to believe the Book of Mormon is true but say, for example, that they believe the Nephite/Lamanite/Jaredite populations were far smaller than indicated... chalk it up to language/translation errors?"