Book Of Mormon Historicity: Does It Matter?

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

Please refer to what I have already said about there not being much that is praiseworthy in a book purporting to be historically authentic when it is not.

 

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."

 

Please refer to what I have said about the fundamental difference between parables and other stories whose historicity is open to question and the Book of Mormon which clearly and unequivocally purports to be a historically authentic record.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

If you don't have a spiritual witness that the Book of Mormon is historically authentic, I submit that you haven't really received a spiritual witness of it. Again, the clear and unequivocal claim is that the book is historically authentic.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

But the Book of Mormon does indeed claim to be historically authentic. There is no equivocation at all.

[Buckeye]

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.

 

I think this is the key point. Consider the story of Adam and Eve. Clearly, it matters to some degree whether Adam was a real person. Yet many Jews and Christians view Adam as symbolic and still find value in his story. For LDS, the picture is complicated because Joseph Smith claims to have been visited by Adam. So if Adam is not real, it calls into question Joseph's reliability.

[Scott Lloyd]

Books aren't frauds. People are.

Nonsense. A book that claims to be historically authentic when it is not is indeed a fraud.

 

Here's an Internet definition of fraud:

 

a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

 

(emphasis mine)

Edited December 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I think this is the key point. Consider the story of Adam and Eve. Clearly, it matters to some degree whether Adam was a real person. Yet many Jews and Christians view Adam as symbolic and still find value in his story. For LDS, the picture is complicated because Joseph Smith claims to have been visited by Adam. So if Adam is not real, it calls into question Joseph's reliability.

The key point of what?

 

Joseph also claimed to have translated a historically authentic record by the gift and power of God.

 

So if the book is not authentic, it calls into question Josephs reliability.

 

But the book is indeed authentic, and thus, Joseph is reliable.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

The key point of what?

 

Joseph also claimed to have translated a historically authentic record by the gift and power of God.

 

So if the book is not authentic, it calls into question Josephs reliability.

 

But the book is indeed authentic, and thus, Joseph is reliable.

it could very well be that Joseph did not realize it was not historically authentic. It is true the people are often mistaken.

[Buckeye]

Please refer to what I have already said about there not being much that is praiseworthy in a book purporting to be historically authentic when it is not.

 

Please refer to what I have said about the fundamental difference between parables and other stories whose historicity is open to question and the Book of Mormon which clearly and unequivocally purports to be a historically authentic record.

 

We'll probably just have to disagree, but here's another shot.

 

Question: What do you think of A Million Little Pieces? That was a book that claimed to be a historical memoir, but then (after an endorsement by Oprah) was exposed to be semi-fictional. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Million_Little_Pieces) I haven't read it, but many people who did still claim to find value in the book. Thus, I would submit that a book which claims to be historical but is not does lose something but not necessarily everything. You can throw out the bathwater and still keep the baby.

 

Another question: would you really throw out all of scripture if it turns out that some scriptural historical fact claims are false. Say it turns out that Christ's mother's name was really Julia. Or that Jesus really didn't turn water to wine; that was just a fable that got mixed in with accounts of real miracles. Or that Laman and Lemuel were the true heroes who got the plates in Jerusalem, but Nephi made up the stories in 1 Nephi to justify his usurpation of the government? Is your testimony of the eternal principles and values espoused by the church really dependent on complete historical factual accuracy?

[Scott Lloyd]

it could very well be that Joseph did not realize it was not historically authentic. It is true the people are often mistaken.

Given the totality of the narrative -- the angel appearing to Joseph, the angel's self-identifcation, the explanation of the record, etc. -- I just don't see that as a viable possiblity.

[Buckeye]

One final analogy and I have to step off.

 

Imagine a child who suspects he was adopted but whose parent's swear to him that he is their natural child. After the parent's death, the child undertakes a DNA test which convinces him that his parents lied; he was in fact adopted. Does that child then throw away everything he was taught by his parents? Obviously not. He shapes his relationship to account for all factors - good and bad. Yes, he loses some trust in his parents, but he still tries to hold on to the good they gave him (which good he knows from experience) and he tries to find ways to understand why his parents would lie.

 

I submit that a book which claims to be historical but which is not places a reader in the same position as the child. Yes, the falsehood is a knock against the book. But it need not be fatal. Books, like people, can be a mix. Things do not have to be "all true or all false" (quoting President Hinckley) - whether speaking of parents, books, church leaders, government leaders, or even my beloved E.B. White.

[stemelbow]

Given the totality of the narrative -- the angel appearing to Joseph, the angel's self-identifcation, the explanation of the record, etc. -- I just don't see that as a viable possiblity.

But it's possible others do. many have argued the Joseph's first vision, visions with Moroni, and others, were more internal, as in some cases others were present and did not witness the same as he. And being a human who has erred it is also possible, he plain lied about the vision experiences, and the book itself could contain great useful content for people.

[Buckeye]

Given the totality of the narrative -- the angel appearing to Joseph, the angel's self-identifcation, the explanation of the record, etc. -- I just don't see that as a viable possiblity.

 

And that's fine. But some members do. And if you're going to argue that their view is not possible, the burden is on you to prove that.

[Rob Osborn]

If the Book of Mormon turned out to be a work of fiction I would walk away from the church and never look back because the whole church would be nothing more than a fraud! But, I do not see that happening. The Book of Mormon is a true history of the Ancient inhabitants of the Americas and our entire religion is principled on the BoM being true. No true LDS can dismiss the historicity of the book and still claim to be a believing member.

[Scott Lloyd]

We'll probably just have to disagree, but here's another shot.

 

Our disagreement is obvious. It's a question of whether a given position is persuasive. The notion that one can have a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon that does not include the conviction that it is historically authentic strikes me as fatally flawed.

 

Question: What do you think of A Million Little Pieces? That was a book that claimed to be a historical memoir, but then (after an endorsement by Oprah) was exposed to be semi-fictional. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Million_Little_Pieces) I haven't read it, but many people who did still claim to find value in the book. Thus, I would submit that a book which claims to be historical but is not does lose something but not necessarily everything. You can throw out the bathwater and still keep the baby.

 

I'm not acquainted with that book, but if it purported to be a historical memoir and was exposed as not being so, I would consider it a fraud. And I would not see much in this that is praiseworthy.

 

 

Another question: would you really throw out all of scripture if it turns out that some scriptural historical fact claims are false. Say it turns out that Christ's mother's name was really Julia. Or that Jesus really didn't turn water to wine; that was just a fable that got mixed in with accounts of real miracles. Or that Laman and Lemuel were the true heroes who got the plates in Jerusalem, but Nephi made up the stories in 1 Nephi to justify his usurpation of the government? Is your testimony of the eternal principles and values espoused by the church really dependent on complete historical factual accuracy?

 

 

You could spend all day concocting fanciful scenarios. It would not change the fact that a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon includes the conviction that it is historically authentic.

[Scott Lloyd]

I submit that a book which claims to be historical but which is not places a reader in the same position as the child. Yes, the falsehood is a knock against the book. But it need not be fatal.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, it would be fatal, since so much hangs on the claims about its historicity. Like Rob Osborn (see his post above), I would have nothing to do with the Mormonism if the book were not true or authentic.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

And that's fine. But some members do. And if you're going to argue that their view is not possible, the burden is on you to prove that.

I have said I don't see it as viable possibility. I don't have a burden to prove whether I do or do not seem something as a viable possibility. I am the world's foremost authority on my own positions.

 

I could explain why I don't see it as viable; I think I have done that.

[Buckeye]

Scott, if all you're trying to do is set forth your beliefs, then  think you've done that well. But if you're trying to convince me (or others) that someone cannot possibly find value in the BOM if they disbelieve its history, then you have the burden and haven't met it. To do that, you'd need to meet with some of the many members of the church who, in one way or another, find a way to take that position. (Again, for the record, I'm not one of them. But I know some of them)

 

So we agree to disagree. If I could, I would just warn against taking such a dogmatic view as to whether other people can "possibly" believe this or that. Sometimes members hear that talk and end up throwing out the baby. A better approach is that of Elder Holland (quoted below), who says we should allow members their beliefs even as we make clear the doctrine of the church. So, yes, the doctrine of the church is that the BOM is historical. But if I'm a bishop and I have a member who believes in the BOM, but not as history, I still give that member a calling and a temple recommend (so long as they not attempting to undermine church doctrine).

  

... Now, in terms of more modern theories, there are those who say it's more mythical literature and spiritual, and not literal. That doesn't work for me. I don't understand that, and I can't go very far with that, because Joseph Smith said there were plates, and he said there was an angel. And if there weren't plates and there wasn't an angel, I have a bigger problem than whether the Book of Mormon is rich literature. ... I have to go with what the prophet said about the book, about its origins, about the literalness of the plates, the literalness of the vision -- and then the product speaks for itself.

 

I don't think we're through examining the depth, the richness, the profundity, the complexity, all of the literary and historical and religious issues that go into that book. I think we're still young at doing that. But the origins for me are the origins that the prophet Joseph said: a set of plates, given by an angel, translated by the gift and power of God. ...

[You say] there are stark choices in beliefs about the origins of the book. Explain why there's no middle way.

 

... If someone can find something in the Book of Mormon, anything that they love or respond to or find dear, I applaud that and say more power to you. That's what I find, too. And that should not in any way discount somebody's liking a passage here or a passage there or the whole idea of the book, but not agreeing to its origin, its divinity. ...

I think you'd be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. ... We would say: "This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I'm going forward. If I can help you work toward that I'd be glad to, but I don't love you less; I don't distance you more; I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum." ... We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.

 

... There are some things we can't give away. There are some foundational stones. If you don't have those, you don't have anything. So the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, those are pretty basic things. ...

 

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

[pogi]

But the Book of Mormon does indeed claim to be historically authentic. There is no equivocation at all.

 

The intro doesn't really count.

[cinepro]

It's easy for Elder Oaks and others to say they take the historicity of The Book of Mormon seriously (and that it is a key issue), but I won't believe that God (or "the Church") takes it seriously until they take a position on the location of Book of Mormon events.  This is a pretty basic component to the "historicity" argument;  if it is so important that the events happened, and to whom they happened, then where they happened is important too.

 

God has done it before.  He revealed that Adam called his posterity together at Adam-Ondi-Ahman, and then he simply revealed where that was.  Depending on how fast Joseph dictated the revelation, it probably took 20 seconds max.  That's it.  20 seconds to reveal the geographical location of a scriptural event.  I can believe God and President Monson don't care much about Book of Mormon geography, but it's hard for me to believe that it isn't worth 20 or 30 seconds of their time to reveal it and announce it in General Conference. 

 

If the Book of Mormon events really happened in a real location (just like Adam-Ondi-Ahman), then it is simple.  And such a revelation shows how "historical" an event is.  There can be no doubt that Adam meeting with his posterity was meant to be a real event among real people, because it has a real location. 

Edited December 2, 2014 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

The intro doesn't really count.

To the extent that the introduction is an accurate reflection of true events and the authoritative narrative propounded by the Prophet Joseph Smith and Church of Jesus Christ, it does indeed count.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

If the Book of Mormon turned out to be a work of fiction I would walk away from the church and never look back because the whole church would be nothing more than a fraud! But, I do not see that happening. The Book of Mormon is a true history of the Ancient inhabitants of the Americas and our entire religion is principled on the BoM being true. No true LDS can dismiss the historicity of the book and still claim to be a believing member.

You'd turn right around and not look back? Would that also suggest all the spiritual works in the temple, for instance, were for naught?

So if say, there never were nephites, but God needed to tell that story for us, which by doing so, establishes all that He needs, then you turning your back on him would be a terrible idea, no?

[pogi]

If the Book of Mormon turned out to be a work of fiction I would walk away from the church and never look back because the whole church would be nothing more than a fraud! But, I do not see that happening. The Book of Mormon is a true history of the Ancient inhabitants of the Americas and our entire religion is principled on the BoM being true. No true LDS can dismiss the historicity of the book and still claim to be a believing member.

 

In the case of the Book of Mormon, it would be fatal, since so much hangs on the claims about its historicity. Like Rob Osborn (see his post above), I would have nothing to do with the Mormonism if the book were not true or authentic.

 

Historicity seems like a rather sandy foundation to base ones membership and testimony.  If, as you say, the BoM is revealed to not be historical, then what are these claims of yours about spiritual witness and testimony?  Do they mean less to you then the historicity of the BoM? 

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, if all you're trying to do is set forth your beliefs, then  think you've done that well. But if you're trying to convince me (or others) that someone cannot possibly find value in the BOM if they disbelieve its history, then you have the burden and haven't met it. To do that, you'd need to meet with some of the many members of the church who, in one way or another, find a way to take that position. (Again, for the record, I'm not one of them. But I know some of them)

 

So we agree to disagree. If I could, I would just warn against taking such a dogmatic view as to whether other people can "possibly" believe this or that. Sometimes members hear that talk and end up throwing out the baby. A better approach is that of Elder Holland (quoted below), who says we should allow members their beliefs even as we make clear the doctrine of the church. So, yes, the doctrine of the church is that the BOM is historical. But if I'm a bishop and I have a member who believes in the BOM, but not as history, I still give that member a calling and a temple recommend (so long as they not attempting to undermine church doctrine).

  

I have not concerned myself in this thread with the pastoral approach a bishop or other leader might take toward one who has not yet obtained a spiritual witness of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I'll cross that bridge if and when I come to it. My attention for now is focused on the logic or soundness of the position that the Book of Mormon can be viewed as a "pious fraud" or "inspired fiction." Again, that doesn't accord with what the book itself or Joseph Smith or the Church purports.

 

I do think it would be disingenuous for a bishop to lead a member to believe that obtaining a proper spiritual witness of the book is unnecessary. I should think a bishop, just like any good missionary, would bear personal witness of the book's authenticity and then invite and encourage the wavering member to seek and obtain his own divine witness.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Historicity seems like a rather sandy foundation to base ones membership and testimony.  If, as you say, the BoM is revealed to not be historical, then what are these claims of yours about spiritual witness and testimony?  Do they mean less to you then the historicity of the BoM? 

On the contrary, believing the book to be "inspired fiction" or "a pious fraud" is the sandy foundation. There are just too many implications of such a notion to be ignored indefinitely, not the least of which being that Joseph Smith would indeed be the con man that the anti-Mormons say he is.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

You'd turn right around and not look back? Would that also suggest all the spiritual works in the temple, for instance, were for naught?

So if say, there never were nephites, but God needed to tell that story for us, which by doing so, establishes all that He needs, then you turning your back on him would be a terrible idea, no?

 

This sounds similar to the BOA catalyst theory which the church has officially sanctioned as a permissible belief.

 

Alternatively, Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation.³³ According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.³⁴

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng