Book Of Mormon Historicity: Does It Matter?

[Scott Lloyd]

I've just become reacquainted with this paper by Elder Dallin H. Oaks delivered back in 1993.

 

In short, his position -- and mine -- is that belief in the historicity (historical authenticity) of the Book of Mormon does indeed matter.

 

Some Latter-day Saint critics who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon seek to make their proposed approach persuasive to Latter-day Saints by praising or affirming the value of some of the content of the book. Those who take this approach assume the significant burden of explaining how they can praise the contents of a book they have dismissed as a fable. I have never been able to understand the similar approach in reference to the divinity of the Savior. As we know, some scholars and some ministers proclaim him to be a great teacher and then have to explain how the one who gave such sublime teachings could proclaim himself (falsely they say) to be the Son of God who would be resurrected from the dead.

 

 

 

I also like this statement, which is consistent with what I have argued in the past, namely that the burden of proof is on the detractors, not the believers:

 

Another way of explaining the strength of the positive position on the historicity of the Book of Mormon is to point out that we who are its proponents are content with a standoff on this question. Honest investigators will conclude that there are so many evidences that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that they cannot confidently resolve the question against its authenticity, despite some unanswered questions that seem to support the negative determination. In that circumstance, the proponents of the Book of Mormon can settle for a draw or a hung jury on the question of historicity and take a continuance until the controversy can be retried in another forum.

In fact, it is our position that secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Its authenticity depends, as it says, on a witness of the Holy Spirit. Our side will settle for a draw, but those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon cannot settle for a draw. They must try to disprove its historicity—or they seem to feel a necessity to do this—and in this they are unsuccessful because even the secular evidence, viewed in its entirety, is too complex for that.

The entire paper is worth a read -- and a review from time to time.

[Avatar4321]

I agree. If it's not historical than the witnesses of the Savior are not true. It's a false witness if it's not true.

[tonie]

I also like this statement, which is consistent with what I have argued in the past, namely that the burden of proof is on the detractors, not the believers:

 

Not sure he is supporting your position.  He settles for a draw. The current evidences, in his opinion, neither proves or disproves the Book of Mormon.

 

In fact, it is our position that secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

 

 

Your position appears to be:

 

"If a detractor can not prove it false, then it must be true."

Edited December 2, 2014 by tonie

[Scott Lloyd]

Not sure he is supporting your position.  He settles for a draw. The current evidences, in his opinion, neither proves or disproves the Book of Mormon.

 

You have misunderstood him. He settles for a draw on the question of whether physical evidence proves or disproves the Book of Mormon. That doesn't mean he personally takes the position that historicity isn't important. From his words it is clear he believes fervently that it does matter -- as do I -- and he believes the book is indeed historically authentic.

 

Elder Oaks wants people to go to the Lord individually and obtain from Him a spiritual witness that the book is authentic. It is obvious that he, himself, has done that.

 

Your position appears to be:

 

"If a detractor can not prove it false, then it must be true."

 

 

 

That's a false and faulty perception.

 

My position is as I have expressed it before: If believers can keep the question open, then a seeker can feel free to take the matter to the Lord in prayer and obtain a personal witness from the Holy Spirit of the book's authenticity, among other things. The detractor, on the other hand, must definitively prove the book false in order to preclude an investigator from seeking such a spiritual witness. This the detractor cannot do, because, in Elder Oaks's words, "the secular evidence, viewed in its entirety, is too complex for that."

Edited December 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

You have misunderstood him. He settles for a draw on the question of whether physical evidence proves or disproves the Book of Mormon. That doesn't mean he personally takes the position that historicity isn't important. From his words it is clear he believes fervently that it does matter -- as do I -- and he believes the book is indeed historically authentic.

 

 

I did not address his position as to the whether the authenticity is important or matters. I only addressed his position that the evidence neither proves or disproves.

 

 

That's a false and faulty perception.

 

My position is as I have expressed it before: If believers can keep the question open, then a seeker can feel free to take the matter to the Lord in prayer and obtain a personal witness from the Holy Spirit. The detractor, on the other hand, must definitively prove the book false in order to preclude an investigator from seeking such a spiritual witness. This the detractor cannot do, because, in Elder Oaks's words, "the secular evidence, viewed in its entirety, is too complex for that."

 

Thanks for the clarification.

[Buckeye]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I've never seen the argument that the historicity of the BOM "does not matter." Obviously, it matters to some degree whether Nephi built a boat, Elijah appeared in Kirtland, or Christ was resurrected. The question some have is whether they can disbelieve some/all of the historical claims and still have a valid basis to hold on to non-historical claims they value.

 

A few examples: If a man stops believing that King Benjamin was a historical person, can he still teach his children to honor King Benjamin's sermons? If a woman stops believing that Elijah gave authority to Joseph/Oliver, can she still hope for her family to be united in the next life? If a person stops believing that Christ was resurrected, can he still hold the beatitudes as truth?

[Mike Reed]

The burden of proof isnt on the nonbelievers. Neither is the burden of proof on non believers of Bigfoot.

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I've never seen the argument that the historicity of the BOM "does not matter." Obviously, it matters to some degree whether Nephi built a boat, Elijah appeared in Kirtland, or Christ was resurrected. The question some have is whether they can disbelieve some/all of the historical claims and still have a valid basis to hold on to non-historical claims they value.

 

A few examples: If a man stops believing that King Benjamin was a historical person, can he still teach his children to honor King Benjamin's sermons? If a woman stops believing that Elijah gave authority to Joseph/Oliver, can she still hope for her family to be united in the next life? If a person stops believing that Christ was resurrected, can he still hold the beatitudes as truth?

I think Elder Oaks has explained it quite concisely:

 

Those who take this approach assume the significant burden of explaining how they can praise the contents of a book they have dismissed as a fable.

 

[stemelbow]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I've never seen the argument that the historicity of the BOM "does not matter." Obviously, it matters to some degree whether Nephi built a boat, Elijah appeared in Kirtland, or Christ was resurrected. The question some have is whether they can disbelieve some/all of the historical claims and still have a valid basis to hold on to non-historical claims they value.

 

A few examples: If a man stops believing that King Benjamin was a historical person, can he still teach his children to honor King Benjamin's sermons? If a woman stops believing that Elijah gave authority to Joseph/Oliver, can she still hope for her family to be united in the next life? If a person stops believing that Christ was resurrected, can he still hold the beatitudes as truth?

I think these are some excellent observations. The same could be said fo the Bible. If Jesus did not live, then the Bible is relegated to something other than scripture it seems to me. But if say Jesus did live, and Jonah was not actually swallowed by a whale and later emerged, this story being but myth, does it make the whole of the Bible not historic?

[Scott Lloyd]

The burden of proof isnt on the nonbelievers. Neither is the burden of proof on non believers of Bigfoot.

In your view, what burden, if any, do believers have?

Edited December 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

The burden of proof isnt on the nonbelievers. Neither is the burden of proof on non believers of Bigfoot.

To an extent. if a nonbeliever declares "it doesn't appear the book of Mormon is historic", then that nonbeliever has created his own burden of proof. Why does it not appear so? Same with those who do not believe bigfoot exists. Why not? Perhaps because there doesn't appear to be any credible sightings? or whatever.

When someone makes a claim, they are in essence creating for themselves a burden. We talk proof, but really we're just dealing with varied conclusions based off of how to interpret the data.

[Mike Reed]

None, if they arent pushing their belief on others.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think these are some excellent observations. The same could be said fo the Bible. If Jesus did not live, then the Bible is relegated to something other than scripture it seems to me. But if say Jesus did live, and Jonah was not actually swallowed by a whale and later emerged, this story being but myth, does it make the whole of the Bible not historic?

There is a fundamental difference between the historicity of the Book of Mormon and your example. Whether or not the Jonah story must be taken literally is open to question.

 

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, purports to be an authentic record kept by members of people who actually lived and abridged by a prophet who actually lived and whose son, as a resurrected being, delivered it to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

 

As Elder Oaks said, those who deny its historical authenticity while professing to believe in it "assume the significant burden of explaining how they can praise the contents of a book they have dismissed as a fable."

Edited December 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

I think Elder Oaks has explained it quite concisely:

Those who take this approach assume the significant burden of explaining how they can praise the contents of a book they have dismissed as a fable.

Any book, whether fiction or non, can be praised for it's content. The teaching is what matters to people, in many cases. Besides anyone can easily suggest the book carries divine guidance whether the events happened or not. There is no burden of proving it ahistorical or not.

[Scott Lloyd]

None, if they arent pushing their belief on others.

The typical and standard approach of Latter-day Saints is to testify of a personal spiritual witness they themselves have received and to invite and encourage others to seek such a spiritual witness.

 

You don't have to definitively prove the book true through physical evidence to do that. All you have to do is rebut the arguments against it sufficiently that the question remains open. If critics are endeavoring to close the question entirely, they have set for themselves a huge -- and, in my view, insurmountable -- task, because, as Elder Oaks points out, "the secular evidence, viewed in its entirety, is too complex for that."

Edited December 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

None, if they arent pushing their belief on others.

Pushing? Doesn't mean much. Stating one's opinion is enough to create a burden of proof. Pushing wouldn't even factor in it.

If ya want to declare your opinion on something then it's up to you to explain. You can exclaim your opinion and no one care, but that does not mean you haven't created a burden for you to prove in case someone wants to challenge your view.

[Scott Lloyd]

Any book, whether fiction or non, can be praised for it's content. The teaching is what matters to people, in many cases. Besides anyone can easily suggest the book carries divine guidance whether the events happened or not. There is no burden of proving it ahistorical or not.

If the book purports to be historically authentic and it is not, it is a fraud.

 

I don't see much that is praiseworthy in that.

[stemelbow]

There is a fundamental difference between the historicity of the Book of Mormon and your example. Whether or not the Jonah story must be taken literally is open to question.

 

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, purports to be an authentic record kept by members of people who actually lived and abridged by a prophet who actually lived and, as a resurrected being, delivered it to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

 

As Elder Oaks said, those who deny its historical authenticity while professing to believe in it "assume the significant burden of explaining how they can praise the contents of a book they have dismissed as a fable."

That's the point of my example. When we say historic what do we mean? All things contained therein as it tells stories of what happened must have happened? No embellishment? No myths shared?

I've already addressed the burden on those who think it fiction. Any book can be praised for it's content, whether it's fiction or non.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's the point of my example. When we say historic what do we mean? All things contained therein as it tells stories of what happened must have happened? No embellishment? No myths shared?

 

It is very clear that the Book of Mormon purports to be historically authentic. That is the meaning of historicity.

 

I've already addressed the burden on those who think it fiction. Any book can be praised for it's content, whether it's fiction or non.

 

And I've already responded that there is not much that is praiseworthy in a book purporting to be historically authentic when it is not.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

If the book purports to be historically authentic and it is not, it is a fraud.

 

I don't see much that is praiseworthy in that.

Books aren't frauds. People are. And people are often mistaken. Books are just books. People assign the label of each being fiction or non. Many novels tell stories that aren't historically authentic but much like the book of Mormon do not say they are not historic. they let the story be told as history.

[stemelbow]

It is very clear that the Book of Mormon purports to be historically authentic.

Just like many a fictionalized novel. They tell a story, setting it as if it really happened, when it did not. And many people praise many fictional accounts.

[Buckeye]

I think Elder Oaks has explained it quite concisely:

 

Those who take this approach assume the significant burden of explaining how they can praise the contents of a book they have dismissed as a fable.

 

Frankly, that doesn't seem to be so hard. I praise the contents of many books which are not historical fact. Following scripture study, I routinely read to my kids from Jonathan Livingston Seagull, Return to the Hundred Acre Wood, A Wrinkle in Time, Charlotte's Web, and many other fables which have very laudable teachings. While I consider the key historical claims of scripture to be factually accurate ("key" being my judgment), I can easily see how some could dismiss these claims and still hold on to the spiritual truths.

 

Moreover, most every active member I have discussed the issue with discounts some factual scriptural claims as "fable" but still holds onto what they think is the truth. For some it's the story of Job; others, Balaam's donkey; and others a global flood. Frankly, I'd have a hard time believing someone's testimony if they said "well, if turns out that Balaam's donkey didn't actual speak, I could no longer believe the spiritual confirmations that told me the Bible is true."

[Buckeye]

The typical and standard approach of Latter-day Saints is to testify of a personal spiritual witness they themselves have received and to invite and encourage others to seek such a spiritual witness.

 

You don't have to definitively prove the book true through physical evidence to do that. All you have to do is rebut the arguments against it sufficiently that the question remains open. If critics are endeavoring to close the question entirely, they have set for themselves a huge -- and, in my view, insurmountable -- burden, because, as Elder Oaks points out, "the secular evidence, viewed in its entirety, is too complex for that."

 

Perhaps we have differing experiences to draw upon. In my experience, the spirit testifies that something is good, but not necessarily that it is historical fact. Otherwise, I'd have to believe that Peter Pan really did come through Wendy's window, as the spirit was just a strong when I read that story to my kids as when I prayed about the BOM.

 

As for burden, I would propose that, as with law, the burden is on whichever party is trying to establish a point. If a critic is trying to prove the BOM is not historical, they bear the burden of proof. If a missionary is trying to prove the BOM is historical, they bear the burden of proof.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just like many a fictionalized novel. They tell a story, setting it as if it really happened, when it did not. And many people praise many fictional accounts.

If it is a "fictionalized novel," it does not purport to be historically authentic. You're not making sense.

[stemelbow]

If it is a "fictionalized novel," it does not purport to be historically authentic. You're not making sense.

Well I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt anyway. oh wait...

As I explained, fiction and non fiction is what we place on books per their category. The books themselves don't claim to be fiction or non, quite often. And some which tell a story as if the story did happen are really just fiction.