Book Of Mormon Historicity: Does It Matter?

[CMZ]

There's also the statement by Elder Holland circa 1994/95 that it's pathetic to think the book has good moral principles in it but is not historically true, because that would be tantamount to saying, "This book and its witness of Christ are of the utmost importance to the world. Oh, by the way, we couldn't find any real people to bear such a testimony so we had to make up some fake ones."

[Robert F. Smith]

They are not obvious because key doctrines have been removed. This is why we have the restoration. The restoration restored doctrine. If all we needed was more research, God would have put a professor in charge of the restoration, but he did not. Instead he gave us a prophet and revelation.

Not true at all.  God respects all forms of knowledge, spiritual and secular, and urges us to obtain them (D&C 88:118, 109:7,14, Proverbs 4:1-7).  Joseph Smith himself emphasized both forms of learning, or have you not heard of the School of the Prophets?

 

The research certainly has enhanced our understanding of the bible, but it has not make our church any more true and nor has it changed anybody's understanding of love.

Love is a wonderful word, but means nothing if it is not backed up by programmatic efforts to make it real.  For that we need not simply good-hearted people prepared to give, but a huge and complex system of delivery to all those we claim to love.  Moreover, we need people who understand love in the way one can only do when it is part of a holy oath and covenant entered into during rites of passage, which are not only part of temple liturgy, but are also a major feature of canonical Scripture.  Scholarship can show how all this is tied together.  Professionalism can administer a vast welfare system which can make it real.  Do you really want to opt for a slapdash and slipshod system which has no roots or foundation?  Should we really just get rid of Orson Pratt, of James Talmage and John A. Widtsoe, of B. H. Roberts, of the Eyrings, and of Hugh Nibley?  Why would we need science or scholarship if everything is so cut & dried as you claim?  Greater depth = greater love, in my humble opinion.

 

Despite all this research, we still have rampant denominationalism as you put it. Research has not enhanced our understanding of gospel principles. Of all the scholarly books and articles I have read, none of them have made me a kinder person more inclined to receive revelation.

No one is twisting your arm to do research, nor even to pay attention to it, but it is your hostility to research which is so telling.

 

Can you give me an example of how the precepts taught in the Book of Mormon have become more clear through academic research? For example, has King Benjamin's discourse on service become more clear? you have yet to provide any examples to support your argument. The examples you have provided only serve to provide historical context and lend support to the claim that it is a genuine ancient book.

On the contrary, I provided several examples of the way in which the detailed covenantal structure of King Benjamin's address does much more than discuss service.  The author/editor made sure that there was plenty of meat on the bones of the multistructural, skeletal array of chiastic relationships in what is a combined Mosaic Pilgrimage Festival, Sacrifice, Coregency Inauguration, Annual Covenant Renewal, and Temple Sermon, all of which go together to provid instruction on many Gospel principles -- just as neither Jesus nor Paul were monomaniacs, but instead taught the full spectrum of Gospel principles.

[mfbukowski]

There's also the statement by Elder Holland circa 1994/95 that it's pathetic to think the book has good moral principles in it but is not historically true, because that would be tantamount to saying, "This book and its witness of Christ are of the utmost importance to the world. Oh, by the way, we couldn't find any real people to bear such a testimony so we had to make up some fake ones."

I want to respond to this to make a point- I agree whole heartedly with Elder Holland.

 

Interestingly he refers to the BOM as another testimony of Christ, which it is.

 

Testimonies are NOT based on history or scientific evidence.  Testimonies come from the heart. 

[Robert F. Smith]

I want to respond to this to make a point- I agree whole heartedly with Elder Holland.

 

Interestingly he refers to the BOM as another testimony of Christ, which it is.

 

Testimonies are NOT based on history or scientific evidence.  Testimonies come from the heart. 

Yessir!!

[cursor]

"Testimonies" that come solely from the heart are not at all necessarily based in truth. How many people do you know that BELIEVE this that or the other, based on heartfelt perspectives ... yet have no reasonable basis in real truth?

[DragonLancer]

"Testimonies" that come solely from the heart are not at all necessarily based in truth. How many people do you know that BELIEVE this that or the other, based on heartfelt perspectives ... yet have no reasonable basis in real truth?

 

The Spirit is a reasonable basis.  Those that hear the voice of the spirit are not misled.  This is why it is the rock of revelation.  What you call real truth is not real truth if it is just empirically based.  Because science is self-corrective, and goes through a process of continual revision.  The Book of Mormon is the key to the gathering together of those who listen to that Spirit, because it presents a test to see who will hear the voice of the Spirit in an environment where no proof is offered intentionally.  The proof of it is the testimonies of all who have had the same testimony.  Those who are outside of that will not necessarily accept those testimonies, but that is by design, because they are not in that group anyway if they are not listening.  So there is strength in the numbers of all those who have had that same testimony.

 

This is why I think people get too caught up in the nuances and details of the arguments for historicity versus 19th century origins.  A more simple question is, does the Book of Mormon represent a faithful representation of a true history of people that really lived, and give a good representation of the actual words and deeds and experiences of those people that wrote it?  Did those people really exist?  And did Joseph Smith actually give us something that faithfully transmits that to us in a book.  The answer to all of those questions is yes.  Why we see 19th century this or that in it is a separate question, which can be answered in a number of ways.  If you can't get past those things to ask the simple yes or no question of whether it is actual history, then you may never listen to that Spirit anyway to get that testimony that yes it is a faithful transmission of true history.

[cursor]

I can very quickly identify at least a dozen personal friends who don't believe in the LDS faith and who all firmly believe in their own personal, varied version of the truth ... and very strongly at that. Again, I stress, "'Testimonies' that come solely from the heart are not at all necessarily based in truth."

 

What is the strength of testimony for "truth" that the Pope owns? How might his vary from yours in terms of intensity or credibility. Because one believes, does not necessarily make it so.

Edited December 10, 2014 by cursor

[mfbukowski]

"Testimonies" that come solely from the heart are not at all necessarily based in truth. How many people do you know that BELIEVE this that or the other, based on heartfelt perspectives ... yet have no reasonable basis in real truth?

Ah yes, and what is "truth" and more importantly how do we KNOW anything about it?

 

I like your father's answer- "things as they are" but with our human frailties in perception how can we know "things as they are"?  We can only know what we can see and feel, nothing beyond that

 

I am willing to say that feeling the spirit is just as "real" to me as seeing a chair across the room- THAT is "things as they are".  Chairs can be seen as they are- over there - that blue leather thing.  The spirit can be felt as it is- that feeling in my heart.

 

THAT is things as they are.

 

THAT is the only truth we can know.

 

So yes, according to your father, knowing things as they are includes the truth that testimonies are "true".

[mfbukowski]

I can very quickly identify at least a dozen personal friends who don't believe in the LDS faith and who all firmly believe in their own personal, varied version of the truth ... and very strongly at that. Again, I stress, "'Testimonies' that come solely from the heart are not at all necessarily based in truth."

 

What is the strength of testimony for "truth" that the Pope owns? How might his vary from yours in terms of intensity or credibility. Because one believes, does not necessarily make it so.

Do you believe that religious truth should be scientific truth?

 

That in principle we could get God to stand on a scale and find out how much he weighs to prove that he exists?   What kind of evidence would we need to prove the existence of God?  You want photos?  You want him to appear?  How do you know that that would not be a hallucination?

 

Was Joseph hallucinating?

 

There IS no truth of the kind you are talking about that shows that God exists at all.   So are you then an atheist?

 

"Things as they are" INCLUDES feelings of the heart, when what we are talking about matters in which there is no objective evidence.

 

And yes, that means that different people are at different places on their journeys and get different answers.  Not a problem

Edited December 11, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

What is the strength of testimony for "truth" that the Pope owns? How might his vary from yours in terms of intensity or credibility. Because one believes, does not necessarily make it so.

The pope has explanations for his feelings which he puts into words.

 

He does not use the same words you would use.  We are talking about explanations for feelings here- not something objective we can all agree on.

 

The differences are purely semantic.

[mfbukowski]

This issue of historicity is the entire crux of the issue of "truth" in the gospel.

 

It is really a pretty simple issue.

 

Either the gospel is "true" because it can be proven historically and scientifically or it cannot be.

 

It cannot be.

 

Therefore in order for us to consider it "true" there must be another definition for "truth" which takes testimony into account.

 

Fortunately there are many ways of seeing "truth" in a way OTHER than scientific truth, which are perfectly valid.  We as a people just need to learn them so we can stop these silly arguments.  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

[Robert F. Smith]

"Testimonies" that come solely from the heart are not at all necessarily based in truth. How many people do you know that BELIEVE this that or the other, based on heartfelt perspectives ... yet have no reasonable basis in real truth?

That is one of the reasons why evangelicals are so condemnatory of pentecostals and Mormons:  They are fearful of unfettered access to the Holy Spirit.  What might happen?

[Freedom]

Not true at all.  God respects all forms of knowledge, spiritual and secular, and urges us to obtain them (D&C 88:118, 109:7,14, Proverbs 4:1-7).  Joseph Smith himself emphasized both forms of learning, or have you not heard of the School of the Prophets?

 

Love is a wonderful word, but means nothing if it is not backed up by programmatic efforts to make it real.  For that we need not simply good-hearted people prepared to give, but a huge and complex system of delivery to all those we claim to love.  Moreover, we need people who understand love in the way one can only do when it is part of a holy oath and covenant entered into during rites of passage, which are not only part of temple liturgy, but are also a major feature of canonical Scripture.  Scholarship can show how all this is tied together.  Professionalism can administer a vast welfare system which can make it real.  Do you really want to opt for a slapdash and slipshod system which has no roots or foundation?  Should we really just get rid of Orson Pratt, of James Talmage and John A. Widtsoe, of B. H. Roberts, of the Eyrings, and of Hugh Nibley?  Why would we need science or scholarship if everything is so cut & dried as you claim?  Greater depth = greater love, in my humble opinion.

 

No one is twisting your arm to do research, nor even to pay attention to it, but it is your hostility to research which is so telling.

 

On the contrary, I provided several examples of the way in which the detailed covenantal structure of King Benjamin's address does much more than discuss service.  The author/editor made sure that there was plenty of meat on the bones of the multistructural, skeletal array of chiastic relationships in what is a combined Mosaic Pilgrimage Festival, Sacrifice, Coregency Inauguration, Annual Covenant Renewal, and Temple Sermon, all of which go together to provid instruction on many Gospel principles -- just as neither Jesus nor Paul were monomaniacs, but instead taught the full spectrum of Gospel principles.

I love research. I do it for a living. There is great value in the research. Nevertheless, the restored gospel, it covenants and its ordinances came through revelation not through academia. You seem to be using circular arguments, almost moving the goal post to continue to try to contradict my point of view. Knowing about the pilgrimage festival or any other ancient ritual that can be found in the book of mormon does nothing to enhance my understanding of the principle of service. It if did, this material would be included in our church curriculum. it is not because it does not enhance our understanding of service. It does not make me a better father or home teacher, it us just very interesting trivia that sets the book of mormon in an ancient time frame. You have, in fact, tried to change the subject. I said that research does not enhance my understanding of service and you turn it around and start arguing that research tells us that his sermon discusses much more than service. There is a complete disconnect between what I am saying and what you are using as an argument against my point of view. did you even read my post?

 

No, I think that you are so enthralled with the research that you are missing the point of the scriptures. In fact, you even change the subject by equating my view of studying the ancient setting of the book of mormon with modern research on contemporary issues such as relationships, social welfare and learning disabilities. The two are not related. knowing where the book of mormon took place, what language it was written in, or linguistic nuances of the text is all very interesting but it does not enhance our understanding of the principles that the book teaches. All my knowledge of the research that has been produced to date has not given me any advantage over my stake president who has no interest in any of this material in terms of understanding gospel principles. He reads the scriptures alone and has a very good understanding of prayer, faith, priesthood ordinances, revelation and so forth. There is nothing that Nibley has written that would improve his grasp of these subjects any better than reading a general conference talk or reading the scriptures themselves. 

 

This does not mean I believe the research is not important. It think it is necessary, but it serves a different purpose.