Is Belief In The Book Mormon As History Important?

[smac97]

That sounds a bit judgmental.  I could care less what people think.  When I became LDS at the age of 23, my family and friends left me.  My girl friend broke up with me.  I did not care.

 

It has nothing to do with sidestepping ridicule.  It has everything to do with reason and testimony.

 

You are right.  I was being judgmental.  I apologize again.

 

Thank you,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

Well, then it's a good thing for me I am under the stewardship of a very loving and understanding stake president and bishop and not you.

So you are finding fault with me because I did not pass judgment on you. That's . . . interesting.

 

(I admit that I am closer to and more open with the SP than the bishop, but the bishop does know of my general views on the BoM.) Quite frankly "leadership roulette" can play a big part in a faith crisis and whether or not someone leaves the church - by choice or otherwise. For the record, my previsous SP was also aware of my stance on the BoM, and also did not have a problem with me having a temple recommend - in fact, he encouraged me to get a new one.

Again, I can't speak to you or your testimony. But I am puzzled that you take exception to a Latter-day Saint expecting belief in The Book of Mormon to be part and parcel of being a Latter-day Saint. Are we likewise free to jettison belief in The Word of Wisdom? The Law of Tithing? Sustaining the Brethren? Church attendance and fulfilling callings? Faith in Christ? Can a person reject the essential truth claims of the Restored Gospel and then proceed to describe herself as "a true believing, active temple recommend holder?" (Again, I am not speaking about you, as I do not know you or your personal circumstances.)

 

In order to return to him, Jesus asked me to believe in him, repent, be baptized, recieve the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end. Those are his words in the New Testament and in the AoF. He did not ask me to believe in the BoM in order to return to Him. Repentance and enduring are ongoing processes on which I (like everyone else)  am working, the others I have completed.

We only know what Jesus has asked us to do because we have scriptures and prophets. I have a hard time understanding how someone can claim to accept the former but reject the latter.

Further, Jesus has also testified of The Book of Mormon, as evidenced by the Testimony of the Three Witnesses:

That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, 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; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things.

So it sounds like Jesus does want us to believe in The Book of Mormon.  

 

Also, consider 2 Nephi 33:10: "And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good."

Jesus also had this to say about The Book of Mormon: in D&C 1:29: "And after having received the record of the Nephites, yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., might have power to translate through the mercy of God, by the power of God, the Book of Mormon."

And this in D&C 19:26: "And again, I command thee that thou shalt not covet thine own property, but impart it freely to the printing of the Book of Mormon, which contains the truth and the word of God."

And this in D&C 20:8: "And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon."

And this in D&C 27:5: "Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim."

And this in D&C 33:16: "And the Book of Mormon and the holy scriptures are given of me for your instruction; and the power of my Spirit quickeneth all things."

And this in D&C 42:12: "And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel."

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

And this in D&C 124:119: "And again, verily I say unto you, let no man pay stock to the quorum of the Nauvoo House unless he shall be a believer in the Book of Mormon, and the revelations I have given unto you, saith the Lord your God."

I don't want to argue about this any more, and I apologize that my previous comments came across that way. Just presenting some food for thought.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[UtahTexan]

Point taken. I retract my statement and apologize.

 

"The sciences" have little value in determining historical authenticity. I know of no scientific means of proving or disproving the truth claims of The Book of Mormon. In any event, "the sciences" are not exactly front and center in Moroni 10:3-5. To fault The Book of Mormon for not being scientifically testable would be about as valid as faulting the love I have for my wife for not being scientifically testable. Both are very important, but neither are amenable to "science."

Besides, things are proven and disproven all the time without resorting to "the sciences" at all. Look at legal disputes, for example. The "evidence" in, say, a contract dispute will virtually never involve a scientifically testable stuff. Instead, we'll have documents, witness testimony, perhaps some audio/visual recordings, all of which is "evidence" but is only "testable" in the sense that a factfinder like a judge or jury will look at it and draw informed conclusions about it.

So if our legal system can render decisions on disputed issues without resorting to "the sciences," why can't other disputed issues likewise be so analyzed?

Well, to start out, we can't be "sure." We have faith, then progress in our knowledge and, hopefully, reach the culminating event described in D&C 50:24: "That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day."

Or you can just call me on making an unfair statement, which you did. I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Thank you.  My last comment was an attempt at humor.....

 

Anyway...when I say "sciences" I am talking geography and archaeology, among others.  I cannot prove the Bible is the Word of God but I CAN go and walk where Jesus walked.  And I can see what Jesus saw.  

 

I cannot do that the Book of Mormon.  That is just one of the issues I have.

 

We are both attorneys.  Part of my problem is, I go with evidence.  Evidence does not need to absolutely prove anything...but is sure helps.  Like Joseph various version of the First Vision.  If you are a litigator, then I feel very confident that you have destroyed witnesses who have two versions of a story.  That is another of my issues.

 

But, I am not here to debate or try to make points.  Unlike a lot who leave....I want to come back.  Coming here is one of the things I do to see if there is any way to regain what I lost.

 

It is not the only thing I do...but it is one thing I do.

 

I truly appreciate your responses.

[mfbukowski]

Smac

For whatever reason, you are not understanding me

I think the BOM is just as "historical" as you do. I guess my argument is just not getting through.

My point is that it is my belief in the historicity that matters, not the historicity itself since that is in principle unknowable.

There is no point in taking this further.

[mfbukowski]

We all agree that accepting The Book of Mormon's historicity requires faith and cannot be "proven." That's a deep thought. I'll ask my friend Jerry about it. Oh wait, he drowned... ;)Thanks,-Smac

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between Jerry drowning in front of you and proving in several hundred years not only the cause of Kerry's death, but whether or not it was Jerry who drowned or someone else or indeed no one.

I recommend some experience in family history research into the dim past to perhaps understand the point better. Am I going to do the work for my 12th great grandfather, based on a second hand account of a William or Will or Bill who is rumored to have lived? Of course.

Am I positive that the work will be for a "real person"? No.

I am content to attend the temple yet again in the hope that the work will help someone, and in so doing, I will myself grow closer to Christ.

The historicity of that individual, though I believe he existed, is irrelevant to my effort to do his work for him. What counts to me is that I did my very best, and felt good about it and grew closer to Christ for the effort.

If that doesn't make sense to you there is not much I can do about it.

Much of the temple work we do are repeats of work done previously. Is it a waste? Of course not

It is my belief that I am helping someone that matters to me, since I will never know otherwise.

[smac97]

Thank you.  My last comment was an attempt at humor.....

 

Anyway...when I say "sciences" I am talking geography and archaeology, among others.  I cannot prove the Bible is the Word of God but I CAN go and walk where Jesus walked.  And I can see what Jesus saw.  

 

I cannot do that the Book of Mormon.  That is just one of the issues I have.

First, if geography and archaeology cannot "prove the Bible is the Word of God," then we aren't really talking about "proof" of The Book of Mormon, either, right?

Second, you can go to some places mentioned in The Bible, but certainly not to all. Louis Midgley has addressed this here:

 

The Bible itself is a case in point. For example, modern sites for only 55 per cent of the place names mentioned in the Bible have been identified — and this from the most carefully scrutinized and studied book in the world. For example, where is Mt. Sinai? There are over twenty candidates. What is the route taken by the Israelites in the Exodus? Again, there are many different theories. These and many other issues of biblical geography are all hotly disputed. Furthermore, the fact that there is widespread agreement on many questions of geography is simply an indication that scholarly consensus has been achieved but not necessarily that the consensus is correct.

...

In fact, comparing the current state of geographical knowledge of the Book of Mormon and the Bible is a false analogy. As Professor Aharoni tells us:

In the final analysis the most certain identifications [of biblical place names] are still those dependent upon preservation of the ancient name, albeit with careful examination of written sources and archaeological data. Out of the approximately 475 place names mentioned in the Bible only about 262 have been identified with any degree of certainty, i.e., 55 per cent. Of these 190 are based upon preservation of the name, viz. 40 per cent of the over-all total. . . . Only 72 places (15 per cent of the over-all total) have been identified in situations where the ancient name is not to be found somewhere in the vicinity, of which only about half carry a degree of certainty, the remainder being more or less conjectural.

In other words, without the continuity of place names between biblical and modern times, only about 36 of the 475 biblical place names could be identified with certainty. But in fact those 36 are identifiable largely because it is possible to triangulate their relationship to known sites, moving from the known to the unknown. It is only because there are numerous biblical sites known with certainty through the continuity of place names that these other 36 sites can be located.

I encourage you to read the entire article. It is worthwhile.

Third, a person can also go climb Mount Olympus in Greece, but the fact that this bit of geography is mentioned in ancient Greek texts doesn't do much by way of authenticating the divinity and reality of Zeus.

Fourth, are you aware of recent discoveries pertaining to Lehi's travels in the Arabian peninsula? There have been very good candidates identified for places referenced and described in The Book of Mormon text, including Nahom and Bountiful. In other words, you may be incorrect when you say that you can go and walk where Jesus walked, but that you can't go do the same for people mentioned in The Book of Mormon (like Lehi and Nephi).

Fifth, The Book of Mormon does not claim to have taken place on an unknown continent. We know that the events took place somewhere in the Americas. John L. Sorensen and others have presented viable candidates for New World locations for places/events described in The Book of Mormon. Are these certain? No, but then neither are many biblical locations (see Midgley's article above).

I don't think the evidentiary circumstances for The Book of Mormon are as dire as you make them out to be. That's not to say that the circumstances are excellent, either. Rather, my point is that evidence the book appears to have been specifically designed to be accepted on faith, so the state of so-called scientific evidence is at best a secondary concern when considering the religious truth claims of the book.

 

We are both attorneys.  Part of my problem is, I go with evidence.  Evidence does not need to absolutely prove anything...but is sure helps.

Agreed. That is why I think Richard Anderson's "Investigating The Book of Mormon Witnesses" is such an important book for folks like you and me. All eleven saw the plates. The Three saw them under miraculous circumstances (the voice of God testifying to them, an angel descending from heaven and showing them the plates, etc.).

There are many other evidences that help. Warren and Michaela Aston's work on Nahom is fascinating. John Welch's work on Chiasmus in The Book of Mormon. Jeff Lindsay's "Evidences" page has a good summary of these and many others: http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

 

Like Joseph various version of the First Vision.  If you are a litigator, then I feel very confident that you have destroyed witnesses who have two versions of a story.  That is another of my issues.

I am unaware of any contradictions in Joseph Smith's various accounts of The First Vision, and there's all sorts of stuff about this topic (Richard L. Bushman, Milton Backman, and Richard L. Anderson all have a lot of interesting things to say).

 

But, I am not here to debate or try to make points.  Unlike a lot who leave....I want to come back.  Coming here is one of the things I do to see if there is any way to regain what I lost.

 

It is not the only thing I do...but it is one thing I do.

 

I truly appreciate your responses.

Same here. I hope you continue your studies and efforts.

Sincerely,

-Smac

Edited October 15, 2014 by smac97

[Boanerges]

So you are finding fault with me because I did not pass judgment on you. That's . . . interesting.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 Not at all - I'm saying it's not your place to judge me. I have my own stewards, great judges in Israel for whom I am grateful to know and associate with, and I have my own salvation and exaltation to work out.

 

Alas, this discussion has become that which I seek to avoid - pointless. Pointless because you have a point of view from which you are not even willing to consider might be other possibilities and there is no way that I will convince you otherwise (and I don't buy into slippery slope arguments). I'm not actually faulting you for that, you are, of course, entitiled to your own beliefs as all of us are (We believe in the privilege of worshipping Almighty God.... - which I might add does not seem to differentiant between members and non-members).  In real life without the anonymity afforded here I would not engage you.

 

So, as mfbukowski says "There is no point in taking this further." My time and effort are better spent with those who want help.

[smac97]

Not at all - I'm saying it's not your place to judge me.

And I'm saying that, too. I've said it a few times now.

I have my own stewards, great judges in Israel for whom I am grateful to know and associate with, and I have my own salvation and exaltation to work out.

 

Alas, this discussion has become that which I seek to avoid - pointless. Pointless because you have a point of view from which you are not even willing to consider might be other possibilities and there is no way that I will convince you otherwise (and I don't buy into slippery slope arguments).

You are incorrect. I have specifically stated that I recognize that other points of view on this issue exist. I have not dismissed them out-of-hand. I have examined them in detail and found them inherently flawed and defective.

I'm not actually faulting you for that, you are, of course, entitiled to your own beliefs as all of us are (We believe in the privilege of worshipping Almighty God.... - which I might add does not seem to differentiant between members and non-members).  In real life without the anonymity afforded here I would not engage you.

 

So, as mfbukowski says "There is no point in taking this further." My time and effort are better spent with those who want help.

Fair enough.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mnn727]

I was listening to a podcast called "Mormon Discussions".  The specific Podcast is called "15 Ways to Help".

 

One of the points was that it is not important to "know".  "Belief" is good enough.

 

Another point was that believing in the B of M as history is not critical, nor is believing that Joseph was a prophet.

 

Another point was that when people have a faith crisis, do not belittle them and cause them pain.

 

All 15 points were really good.  Had members acted like he suggests, I might have never left the Church way back when.

 

Anyway...my question...do y'all agree with him?  I think the guy who does the podcast is named Bill Reel.

I agree with everything that you posted that he said.

Scripture is not meant to be a history text

I wasn't sure if Joseph was or was not a Prophet when I joined so I'll let that one slide a bit - although later I knew/know that he had to have been.

[UtahTexan]

First, if geography and archaeology cannot "prove the Bible is the Word of God," then we aren't really talking about "proof" of The Book of Mormon, either, right?

Second, you can go to some places mentioned in The Bible, but certainly not to all. Louis Midgley has addressed this here:

 

The Bible itself is a case in point. For example, modern sites for only 55 per cent of the place names mentioned in the Bible have been identified — and this from the most carefully scrutinized and studied book in the world. For example, where is Mt. Sinai? There are over twenty candidates. What is the route taken by the Israelites in the Exodus? Again, there are many different theories. These and many other issues of biblical geography are all hotly disputed. Furthermore, the fact that there is widespread agreement on many questions of geography is simply an indication that scholarly consensus has been achieved but not necessarily that the consensus is correct.

...

In fact, comparing the current state of geographical knowledge of the Book of Mormon and the Bible is a false analogy. As Professor Aharoni tells us:

In the final analysis the most certain identifications [of biblical place names] are still those dependent upon preservation of the ancient name, albeit with careful examination of written sources and archaeological data. Out of the approximately 475 place names mentioned in the Bible only about 262 have been identified with any degree of certainty, i.e., 55 per cent. Of these 190 are based upon preservation of the name, viz. 40 per cent of the over-all total. . . . Only 72 places (15 per cent of the over-all total) have been identified in situations where the ancient name is not to be found somewhere in the vicinity, of which only about half carry a degree of certainty, the remainder being more or less conjectural.

In other words, without the continuity of place names between biblical and modern times, only about 36 of the 475 biblical place names could be identified with certainty. But in fact those 36 are identifiable largely because it is possible to triangulate their relationship to known sites, moving from the known to the unknown. It is only because there are numerous biblical sites known with certainty through the continuity of place names that these other 36 sites can be located.

I encourage you to read the entire article. It is worthwhile.

Third, a person can also go climb Mount Olympus in Greece, but the fact that this bit of geography is mentioned in ancient Greek texts doesn't do much by way of authenticating the divinity and reality of Zeus.

Fourth, are you aware of recent discoveries pertaining to Lehi's travels in the Arabian peninsula? There have been very good candidates identified for places referenced and described in The Book of Mormon text, including Nahom and Bountiful. In other words, you may be incorrect when you say that you can go and walk where Jesus walked, but that you can't go do the same for people mentioned in The Book of Mormon (like Lehi and Nephi).

Fifth, The Book of Mormon does not claim to have taken place on an unknown continent. We know that the events took place somewhere in the Americas. John L. Sorensen and others have presented viable candidates for New World locations for places/events described in The Book of Mormon. Are these certain? No, but then neither are many biblical locations (see Midgley's article above).

I don't think the evidentiary circumstances for The Book of Mormon are as dire as you make them out to be. That's not to say that the circumstances are excellent, either. Rather, my point is that evidence the book appears to have been specifically designed to be accepted on faith, so the state of so-called scientific evidence is at best a secondary concern when considering the religious truth claims of the book.

 

Agreed. That is why I think Richard Anderson's "Investigating The Book of Mormon Witnesses" is such an important book for folks like you and me. All eleven saw the plates. The Three saw them under miraculous circumstances (the voice of God testifying to them, an angel descending from heaven and showing them the plates, etc.).

There are many other evidences that help. Warren and Michaela Aston's work on Nahom is fascinating. John Welch's work on Chiasmus in The Book of Mormon. Jeff Lindsay's "Evidences" page has a good summary of these and many others: http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

 

I am unaware of any contradictions in Joseph Smith's various accounts of The First Vision, and there's all sorts of stuff about this topic (Richard L. Bushman, Milton Backman, and Richard L. Anderson all have a lot of interesting things to say).

 

Same here. I hope you continue your studies and efforts.

Sincerely,

-Smac

 

First, as to your first comment, I have never said that the Book of Mormon did not have Godly teachings in it.  As a doctrine, I have no issues.  The issue is the History.  And though I cannot travel to ALL Biblical sites, I can travel to many.  The fact that the Bible spans many more years, I am not surprised.  However, the fact I can visit NONE concerns me.

 

As to the versions contradicting....they do.  I have severely damaged witness with less inconsistencies than Joseph's versions contain.

 

I have also read things about the witnesses that give me pause...as they would you if in a trial not involving the Book of Mormon.

 

I will try to find the book you cited.  If you, as an attorney, say it is worth reading because I am an attorney, then I will read it.

 

Thank you for your prayers.  Funny.....my path to regain started when I read parts of my missionary journal on the 25th anniversary of my mission.  Now, I am still seeking on the 30th anniversary.  Only yhis tme, I am reading my journal day by day to coincide with the days I wrote it....30 years ago......

[mfbukowski]

First, if geography and archaeology cannot "prove the Bible is the Word of God," then we aren't really talking about "proof" of The Book of Mormon, either, right?

Second, you can go to some places mentioned in The Bible, but certainly not to all. Louis Midgley has addressed this here:

 

The Bible itself is a case in point. For example, modern sites for only 55 per cent of the place names mentioned in the Bible have been identified — and this from the most carefully scrutinized and studied book in the world. For example, where is Mt. Sinai? There are over twenty candidates. What is the route taken by the Israelites in the Exodus? Again, there are many different theories. These and many other issues of biblical geography are all hotly disputed. Furthermore, the fact that there is widespread agreement on many questions of geography is simply an indication that scholarly consensus has been achieved but not necessarily that the consensus is correct.

...

In fact, comparing the current state of geographical knowledge of the Book of Mormon and the Bible is a false analogy. As Professor Aharoni tells us:

In the final analysis the most certain identifications [of biblical place names] are still those dependent upon preservation of the ancient name, albeit with careful examination of written sources and archaeological data. Out of the approximately 475 place names mentioned in the Bible only about 262 have been identified with any degree of certainty, i.e., 55 per cent. Of these 190 are based upon preservation of the name, viz. 40 per cent of the over-all total. . . . Only 72 places (15 per cent of the over-all total) have been identified in situations where the ancient name is not to be found somewhere in the vicinity, of which only about half carry a degree of certainty, the remainder being more or less conjectural.

In other words, without the continuity of place names between biblical and modern times, only about 36 of the 475 biblical place names could be identified with certainty. But in fact those 36 are identifiable largely because it is possible to triangulate their relationship to known sites, moving from the known to the unknown. It is only because there are numerous biblical sites known with certainty through the continuity of place names that these other 36 sites can be located.

I encourage you to read the entire article. It is worthwhile.

Third, a person can also go climb Mount Olympus in Greece, but the fact that this bit of geography is mentioned in ancient Greek texts doesn't do much by way of authenticating the divinity and reality of Zeus.

Fourth, are you aware of recent discoveries pertaining to Lehi's travels in the Arabian peninsula? There have been very good candidates identified for places referenced and described in The Book of Mormon text, including Nahom and Bountiful. In other words, you may be incorrect when you say that you can go and walk where Jesus walked, but that you can't go do the same for people mentioned in The Book of Mormon (like Lehi and Nephi).

Fifth, The Book of Mormon does not claim to have taken place on an unknown continent. We know that the events took place somewhere in the Americas. John L. Sorensen and others have presented viable candidates for New World locations for places/events described in The Book of Mormon. Are these certain? No, but then neither are many biblical locations (see Midgley's article above).

I don't think the evidentiary circumstances for The Book of Mormon are as dire as you make them out to be. That's not to say that the circumstances are excellent, either. Rather, my point is that evidence the book appears to have been specifically designed to be accepted on faith, so the state of so-called scientific evidence is at best a secondary concern when considering the religious truth claims of the book.

 

Agreed. That is why I think Richard Anderson's "Investigating The Book of Mormon Witnesses" is such an important book for folks like you and me. All eleven saw the plates. The Three saw them under miraculous circumstances (the voice of God testifying to them, an angel descending from heaven and showing them the plates, etc.).

There are many other evidences that help. Warren and Michaela Aston's work on Nahom is fascinating. John Welch's work on Chiasmus in The Book of Mormon. Jeff Lindsay's "Evidences" page has a good summary of these and many others: http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

 

I am unaware of any contradictions in Joseph Smith's various accounts of The First Vision, and there's all sorts of stuff about this topic (Richard L. Bushman, Milton Backman, and Richard L. Anderson all have a lot of interesting things to say).

 

Same here. I hope you continue your studies and efforts.

Sincerely,

-Smac

 

I find the spirit of this post very ironic.  There are serious problems with using historicity as an argument for the validity of scripture  and it seems fine to bring them up with the bible, but not with the BOM.

 

Odd.

 

 

Third, a person can also go climb Mount Olympus in Greece, but the fact that this bit of geography is mentioned in ancient Greek texts doesn't do much by way of authenticating the divinity and reality of Zeus.

 

Oh my gosh.

 

That is exactly my argument!

Edited October 16, 2014 by mfbukowski

[UtahTexan]

"Third, a person can also go climb Mount Olympus in Greece, but the fact that this bit of geography is mentioned in ancient Greek texts doesn't do much by way of authenticating the divinity and reality of Zeus."

 

True.

 

But that is a fallacious argument.  

[smac97]

I find the spirit of this post very ironic.  There are serious problems with using historicity as an argument for the validity of scripture  and it seems fine to bring them up with the bible, but not with the BOM.

What I am saying is this: Jesus Christ only works as the Son of God and the Savior of the World in whom we have faith if there is historicity attached to him. A fictional Christ has no power to save us, just like the fictional life preserver had no power to save Jerry.

Likewise, The Book of Mormon only works as scripture if there is historicity attached to it. A fictional Book of Mormon renders Joseph Smith a false prophet. A liar. A fraud. A charlatan. God Himself has testified of the historicity, the historical reality, of the book. He has testified as to its origins as a translated work from ancient gold plates (see Testimony of the Three Witnesses, D&C 1:29, D&C 20:8 ), that He gave it to us (D&C 27:5, D&C 33:16), and that we are to be "believers" in it (D&C 124:119). Joseph Smith and all of his successors have presented it as a translation of an ancient text about real people and real events.

We can no more disregard the historicity of The Book of Mormon than we can disregard the historicity of Jesus Christ.

And for the record, I believe that belief in the historicity of the Bible is also necessary (I refer here to historicity in a broad, macro sense, not in an inerrantist, every-jot-and-tittle-is-a-pure-and-100%-accurate-depiction-of-historical-events-and-people sense).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 16, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

"Third, a person can also go climb Mount Olympus in Greece, but the fact that this bit of geography is mentioned in ancient Greek texts doesn't do much by way of authenticating the divinity and reality of Zeus."

 

True.

 

But that is a fallacious argument.

How so? What's the fallacy?

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

What I am saying is this: Jesus Christ only works as the Son of God and the Savior of the World in whom we have faith if there is historicity attached to him. A fictional Christ has no power to save us, just like the fictional life preserver had no power to save Jerry.

Likewise, The Book of Mormon only works as scripture if there is historicity attached to it. 

What does that MEAN??

 

"Historicity ATTACHED"?

 

What you mean is that it only works if you BELIEVE it's historical- which is what I have been saying from the beginning.

 

Please explain how historicity "attaches" to people and events- empirically in the real world, if you are not taking about beliefs.

 

Does the thing in the world get a little stamp attached that shows it's "historical"?   Maybe a little H or something? 

 

The only possible thing it could mean is if we BELIEVE, or DEFINE it as "historical" perhaps by scholars who believe they have "evidence".

And as you yourself said,

 

Third, a person can also go climb Mount Olympus in Greece, but the fact that this bit of geography is mentioned in ancient Greek texts doesn't do much by way of authenticating the divinity and reality of Zeus.

Surely you can explain it better than that, if indeed you have a point to explain.

Do the Greek texts "attach" historicity or not?  How are they deficient in doing so?  Because YOU don't believe Zeus was "real"?  

 

What if the father god known as "Zeus" was "really" El himself?  How would we know that he was "just wrongly named"?  Do we have the "right" name?  How do we know that?

 

You seem to think that if "historicity is not attached" then a statement or belief is "fictional".  Clearly that is not the case

Edited October 16, 2014 by mfbukowski

[UtahTexan]

How so? What's the fallacy?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

One is a book purporting to be fiction using recognized places.  One is a book purporting to be historical which no one can be sure ever happened and for which there is no evidence.  You are trying to use one to prove the other.

 

That is like me trying to prove a banana taste good because an apple tastes good.

[smac97]

What does that MEAN??

 

"Historicity ATTACHED"?

It sounded weird to say "Jesus Christ only works as the Son of God and the Savior of the World in whom we have faith if he has historicity" and "The Book of Mormon only works as scripture if it has historicity." But c'mon. I've been re-hashing the same point for several pages now.

You seem to be approaching this topic very differently from my approach. I am referring to "historicity," which means "historical authenticity." We both seem to acknowledge the role of faith/belief in approaching Jesus Christ and The Book of Mormon. The question is whether that approach can consist of believing in a fictional Christ and a fictional Book of Mormon (I don't think such an approach works) or a historically authentic Jesus Christ and historically authentic Book of Mormon (I think this is the only feasible way to have faith/belief in Jesus Christ and The Book of Mormon).

 

What you mean is that it only works if you BELIEVE it's historical- which is what I have been saying from the beginning.

No. I mean faith in Christ only works if that faith is grounded in Christ having historicity, in being an actual real being. A fictional Christ has no more power to save than a fictional life preserver has to save Jerry's life.

 

Please explain how historicity "attaches" to people and events- empirically in the real world, if you are not taking about beliefs.

We are talking about "belief" either way: Belief that Christ has historicity (He was an actual, real person), or belief that He is a fictional character. Belief in The Book of Mormon as having historicity (it describes real people and real events), or belief that it is a work of fiction and that Joseph Smith lied, the Witnesses lied or were deluded dupes, that God Himself lied, etc.

 

Does the thing in the world get a little stamp attached that shows it's "historical"?   Maybe a little H or something? 

 

The only possible thing it could mean is if we BELIEVE, or DEFINE it as "historical" perhaps by scholars who believe they have "evidence".

And as you yourself said,

Surely you can explain it better than that, if indeed you have a point to explain.

I've explained my position at length. Here's one more shot: A person who professes faith in Jesus Christ, but then declares that Jesus Christ is a fictional person, who never existed as the Son of God, who never atoned for the sins of the children of men, is professing a kind of faith that is unrecognizable and unworkable in the Restored Gospel.

A person who professes faith in The Book of Mormon, but then declares the book to be a work of fiction and rejects the claims The Book of Mormon makes for itself and its origins, and the claims made by Joseph Smith, and by the Witnesses, and by all of Joseph Smith's successors, and by God Himself, is professing a kind of faith that is unrecognizable and unworkable in the Restored Gospel.

 

You seem to think that if "historicity is not attached" then a statement or belief is "fictional".  Clearly that is not the case

No, I don't think that. At all.

"Historicity" means "historical authenticity." Jesus Christ only works as the Savior of Mankind if He has "historical authenticity." If He really was born the Son of God, grew up and taught the Gospel and performed miracles, endured agonies at Gethsemane and on the Cross, was killed and then resurrected after three days, and completed a perfect atonement for the children of God. If He does not have "historical authenticity," then there's no point in believing in Him (just like there would be no point in Jerry trying to reach out to an imaginary life preserver).

The Book of Mormon also only works as scripture if it has "historical authenticity." If it is fiction, then Joseph Smith lied about it and defrauded and tricked all of us. The Witnesses were either co-conspirators or deluded dupes. Joseph Smith's prophetic claims fall if The Book of Mormon is fiction.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 16, 2014 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

In fairness to smac, I edited my previous post- (additions- no subtractions) after he posted this, but before I read his reply.  I do not expect a reply on those additions- unless he wants to do so-  I don't think the new points I made really carry my argument further

 

No. I mean faith in Christ only works if that faith is grounded in Christ having historicity, in being an actual real being. A fictional Christ has no more power to save than a fictional life preserver has to save Jerry's life.
 

We are talking about "belief" either way: Belief that Christ has historicity (He was an actual, real person), or belief that He is a fictional character. Belief in The Book of Mormon as having historicity (it describes real people and real events).

Emphasis added.

 

Yep we are talking about belief either way.  That is what I have said from the beginning.  We cannot "know" what "really happened" so what makes the difference is our BELIEF in "what really happened".  We don't have a video from a time machine of the resurrection certified to be a true video by the TRUTH CERTIFYING COMPANY, who we get to sue if it's fake.

 

That is what I have been saying all along.  I do not believe in fiction either, and I have never used that term.

 

We are talking about belief either way.

 

Now can we stop this?

[mfbukowski]

More...

 

I've explained my position at length. Here's one more shot: A person who professes faith in Jesus Christ, but then declares that Jesus Christ is a fictional person, who never existed as the Son of God, who never atoned for the sins of the children of men, is professing a kind of faith that is unrecognizable and unworkable in the Restored Gospel.

 

Never said that.  Do you understand the difference between what is "fiction" and what cannot be demonstrated to be true?  You know, counselor- reasonable doubt??

[smac97]

In fairness to smac, I edited my previous post- (additions- no subtractions) after he posted this, but before I read his reply.  I do not expect a reply on those additions- unless he wants to do so-  I don't think the new points I made really carry my argument further

 

Emphasis added.

 

Yep we are talking about belief either way.  That is what I have said from the beginning.  We cannot "know" what "really happened" so what makes the difference is our BELIEF in "what really happened".

What makes the difference is whether we believe in Christ as a real, historically authentic being, or not. A fictional Christ has no power to save, but a real one does. We Latter-day Saints are, I think, not a liberty to tell ourselves and others "Sure, you can believe that Jesus never existed. It doesn't matter whether you believe He really existed, was/is the Son of God, atoned for our sins, and so on." Such a message is, well, false. Likewise, I do not think we are at liberty to reject The Book of Mormon's message about its origins, Joseph Smith's testimony about its origins, the Witnesses' testimony about its origins, God's testimony about its origins, etc. Such a message is, well, false. We cannot lie about The Book of Mormon when we share it with others. We cannot, as professed saints, say that God lied about it being a miraculously translated work from ancient records about real people and real events.

We don't have a video from a time machine of the resurrection certified to be a true video by the TRUTH CERTIFYING COMPANY, who we get to sue if it's fake.

 

That is what I have been saying all along.  I do not believe in fiction either, and I have never used that term.

 

We are talking about belief either way.

 

Now can we stop this?

You said that the need for historicity - the historical authenticity - of things like The Book of Mormon (and, presumably, Jesus Christ) is illusory and unimportant. I think historicity is a vital component of having faith in Christ and faith in The Book of Mormon.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

I've explained my position at length. Here's one more shot: A person who professes faith in Jesus Christ, but then declares that Jesus Christ is a fictional person, who never existed as the Son of God, who never atoned for the sins of the children of men, is professing a kind of faith that is unrecognizable and unworkable in the Restored Gospel.

Never said that.

You said the demand for historicity is unimportant and illusory. My position is that faith in Christ (meaningful, coherent, efficacious faith) requires faith in Christ being a historically authentic person, in Him having historicity.

Do you understand the difference between what is "fiction" and what cannot be demonstrated to be true?  You know, counselor- reasonable doubt??

While we have disagreed in this thread, our disagreement has been, to this point, civil and respectful. I have not insulted your intelligence, nor made snide remarks about your profession (whatever it is). Now that you have done both of these things, perhaps we should stop talking. I'll help with this effort by ceasing further communications with you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bcuzbcuz]

Isn't the elephant in the middle of this discussion forum that no historicity of the Book of Mormon exists? Attempts have been made to link known information or archaeological finds from various people groups in Central, South and North America, but to date nothing has come close to a bullseye.

Regardless of anyone's stance on how belief should be interpretted, all of these "faith" discussions are necessary because nothing exists that moves the discussion from interpretation to actual, tangible knowledge.

[smac97]

Isn't the elephant in the middle of this discussion forum that no historicity of the Book of Mormon exists?

Whether The Book of Mormon is historically authentic is hotly disputed. As a general rule, non-Mormons who have given it any thought reject the idea of the text being historically authentic, while Latter-day Saints take the position that it is historically authentic. Neither position is provable or falsifiable.

But this thread deals, to some extent, with the decidedly odd conflation of these two seemingly incompatible positions. That is, there are some people in the LDS Church who have taken a position that The Book of Mormon is fictional, or that it doesn't matter if it is real or fictional. My argument is that historicity matters, and it matters a lot. I have marshalled a number of quotes from LDS scriptures and LDS leaders which, I think supports my argument.

Attempts have been made to link known information or archaeological finds from various people groups in Central, South and North America, but to date nothing has come close to a bullseye.

Archaeology is not the only form of evidence. Archaeology in the Americas as to civilizations during the BOM era is vastly incomplete. At present, New World archaeology has limited utility in addressing the claims of The Book of Mormon text.

Also, what are your thoughts on the posited Nahom/Bountiful data in the Arabian Peninsula? What about "sheum?" Chiasmus? Malkiyahu/Mulek? The Testimony of the Three Witnesses and the witnesses themselves?

Moreover, these are all secondary considerations to The Book of Mormon, acceptance of which is designed to be based on the Spirit and on faith (with other "evidences" providing buttressing support).

Regardless of anyone's stance on how belief should be interpretted, all of these "faith" discussions are necessary because nothing exists that moves the discussion from interpretation to actual, tangible knowledge.

I cannot agree that "nothing exists" in terms of evidentiary support for The Book of Mormon. I think quite a bit of evidence exists. It's probably not sufficiently probative for people who do not have a faith-based approach to The Book of Mormon, but arguing probative weight of evidence is a very different thing from arguing the existence of evidence. Evidence plainly exists. The issue is the overall probative value of that evidence. For Latter-day Saints, this is not - or should not be - the weighing of secular evidence takes a back seat to weighing the spiritual evidence of the book.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

Isn't the elephant in the middle of this discussion forum that no historicity of the Book of Mormon exists? Attempts have been made to link known information or archaeological finds from various people groups in Central, South and North America, but to date nothing has come close to a bullseye.

Regardless of anyone's stance on how belief should be interpretted, all of these "faith" discussions are necessary because nothing exists that moves the discussion from interpretation to actual, tangible knowledge.

We've had this discussion before, and you lost.  You substitute bare assertion for discussion of hard evidence, and we have seen the same sort of empty assertion by skeptics and atheists on biblical historicity.

 

Were you to present us with a serious review of Sorenson's Mormon's Codex, or of my August 2014 "The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage," online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf , you could try to support your empty assertions with substantive argument.  However, bcuz you have never come to grips with the facts, one cannot take your assertions seriously.

[mfbukowski]

While we have disagreed in this thread, our disagreement has been, to this point, civil and respectful. I have not insulted your intelligence, nor made snide remarks about your profession (whatever it is). Now that you have done both of these things, perhaps we should stop talking. I'll help with this effort by ceasing further communications with you.

Well I sincerely apologize for that; I have a tendency to become overly emphatic in my argumentation and in some cases frustrated in my inability to convey the clarity with which I see some issues, to others.

In fact, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with a worthy opponent, if nothing else, to help me hone the way I express the arguments in hopes of making them easier to understand. So I hope, after all my protests to the contrary, that we can continue a little bit more.

What makes the difference is whether we believe in Christ as a real, historically authentic being, or not. A fictional Christ has no power to save, but a real one does. We Latter-day Saints are, I think, not a liberty to tell ourselves and others "Sure, you can believe that Jesus never existed. It doesn't matter whether you believe He really existed, was/is the Son of God, atoned for our sins, and so on." Such a message is, well, false. Likewise, I do not think we are at liberty to reject The Book of Mormon's message about its origins, Joseph Smith's testimony about its origins, the Witnesses' testimony about its origins, God's testimony about its origins, etc. Such a message is, well, false. We cannot lie about The Book of Mormon when we share it with others. We cannot, as professed saints, say that God lied about it being a miraculously translated work from ancient records about real people and real events.

You said that the need for historicity - the historical authenticity - of things like The Book of Mormon (and, presumably, Jesus Christ) is illusory and unimportant. I think historicity is a vital component of having faith in Christ and faith in The Book of Mormon.

Thanks,

-Smac

Fair enough, you are right, I did say that. So how do we get from the point we agree upon to that extra step?

Let's look a little closer at my argument. First, I am also talking about "authenticity"- that Jesus authentically existed , died and atoned for us, etc.- that they were "real events" which really happened.

The problem is an epistemological one. What is our standard for labeling an historic event which happened several thousand years ago (those including BOM and old testament events) as being "authentic"?

How can we possibly know- rationally and with historical "authenticity" that Job existed, that Alma existed, that evolution is incorrect and the first man was named "Adam", that Lehi really came to the West in a boat, etc etc? How about the Jardites and their barges?

Now I am asking you in a court of law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Jaredites used the vessels described, that Lehi existed and that indeed even that a man named Jesus had the power to atone for our sins?

At what point can we reasonably say that they were "authentic"? What is the standard for "historicity"?

It is arbitrary. Again I am not talking about the spirit confirming this all to us, I am talking about strict logical reasonability. At what point would a reasonable man say "Yes, I suppose it is reasonable to believe that Lehi existed?" Not a church member, but any reasonable man agreeing that these events were "authetic"?  At what point do we draw the epistemological line?

Is it as in a court of law- beyond a reasonable doubt?  Not "proof"- not pictures of the crucifixion, but just "beyond a reasonable doubt" that these things authentically happened?

I maintain with the evidence available, we have nothing close to this standard, at least not today.

Based on these standards it is NOT "reasonable" to believe that the BOM is "authentic", at least as a reasonably objective person would see it.

But that does not for one minute mean that ANY of these events "are fictional".

 

This is a complex world. We can't prove absolutely, as Bertrand Russell convincingly argued that the world did NOT spring into existence 5 minutes ago, much less what "actually happened" thousands of years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Other_formulations%C2'>

 

In front of a jury of non-members, could any of us win that case for reasonable historicity?

 

If we CAN, where are not people flocking into the church based on the history alone?  To me THAT is the ultimate test!

Science is not infallible- paradigms change, and we have an endless stream of metaphysical theories about what is "real" and what is not. I discount NOTHING as "impossible" except what is logically contradictory, and clearly that does not fit the gospel at all. I

 

I personally believe everything in the scriptures COULD have happened, if God wanted it to, in my opinion- Adam being "real" and donkeys talking -- ALL of it "could be" historically authentic, the way I see the world. This is a very mysterious place.

But convincing 12 randomly picked "men on the street" of that? VERY doubtful.

You said:

What makes the difference is whether we believe in Christ as a real, historically authentic being, or not. A fictional Christ has no power to save, but a real one does. We Latter-day Saints are, I think, not a liberty to tell ourselves and others "Sure, you can believe that Jesus never existed. It doesn't matter whether you believe He really existed, was/is the Son of God, atoned for our sins, and so on."

I totally agree. Totally! Belief is the whole thing- and anything is possible, so why NOT believe?

 

You said the demand for historicity is unimportant and illusory.

Now we get to it.

If indeed one cannot show that Jesus died for our sins AT ALL much less to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" to a hypothetical jury of non-believers, can it be said that "historicity is important"?

 

It is not.  People are not flocking into the church based on the historicity of Christ, the atonement, the Book of Mormon or ANY of that.  That is perfectly clear.

The BELIEF in historicty IS incredibly important, TO US but how can the claims of actual authentic historicity be important if there ARE NONE as evidenced by virtually no conversions based on how convincing the historic arguments are?

Relying on such claims are indeed illusory, because to a reasonable, objective observer, such claims do not even exist.

 

A reasonable objective observer would say that such beliefs are illusions- and indeed we see that sort of thing daily here on this very board, or at least used to when real atheists would post here.  Indeed that was their usual line of criticism.

Could you convince an atheist of the historicity of the BOM? Why not? Because they are unreasonable?  Because they are illogical and cannot see the clear authenticity of the historical position?

You said:

What makes the difference is whether we believe in Christ as a real, historically authentic being, or not.

 

That is exactly right. The difference is whether WE BELIEVE that Christ really did exist and do what the scriptures say he did, not in belief that the historicity can be shown. It COULD have happened, and we have faith- "hope in things unseen" that indeed it DID happen, but it is an illusion to think that we have sufficient evidence to show - absent the desire to believe, as Alma pointed out- that it DID happen.

This all probably made no difference, but I have faith- hope in things unseen- that it helped someone.

 

Frankly, when I was an atheist and someone told me that arguments for the historicity of the gospel were strong, I thought they were, uh, let's just say - wrong.  I found those claims totally unreasonable.  In fact it was MY belief that what mattered was MY BELIEF in the atonement- that MY BELIEF made it real for me.

 

I know there are others out there with those beliefs.  I totally understand their point of view, and those are the folks I hope to help find the gospel, and not let historicity problems hurt the development of their testimonies.

 

The great strength of religious positions in general is that they can neither be proven nor disproven, but always accepted on faith.  They do not rest on historicity at all, but on the BELIEF in historicity.

 

It is totally reasonable to have faith- the hope for things unseen- in the historicity of miracles like the atonement, but quite another thing to think that such beliefs can be shown to be true "beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

This is quite long enough.