Book Of Mormon Historicity: Does It Matter?

[pogi]

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.

 

No one has claimed that the intro is anything more than our best understanding of the narrative.  The intro is not set in stone, but can and has changed as our understanding grows.   The book itself does note claim to be historically authentic anymore than any fictional novel does.  It cannot accurately be described as "fraudulent" if it was found to not be historical

Edited December 2, 2014 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

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

 

 

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

A "catalyst theory" regarding the Book of Mormon would be so far out of accord with the historical narrative and testimony given by Joseph Smith, the witnesses and others as to not merit serious consideration.

 

We have far less regarding the origin of the Book of Abraham.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

No one has claimed that the intro is anything more than our best understanding of the narrative.  The intro is not set in stone, but can and has changed as our understanding grows.   The book itself does note claim to be historically authentic anymore than any fictional novel does.  It cannot accurately be described as "fraudulent" if it was found to not be historical

That's why I used the phrase "to the extent that." But I have no reason to believe the introduction is substantially inaccurate at this point, not to the extent that I could blithely declare that "it doesn't count," nor could I compare it in any material sense to "a fictional novel."

Edited December 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

A "catalyst theory" regarding the Book of Mormon would be so far out of accord with the historical narrative and testimony given by Joseph Smith, the witnesses and others as to not merit serious consideration.

 

We have far less regarding the origin of the Book of Abraham.

 

To the contrary, the historical record is very clear that Joseph and all others involved in the BOA translation believed that they were performing an actual word-for-word translation of the documents in their possession. To embrace the catalyst theory is to say that Joseph fundamentally misunderstood (or lied) about what he was doing.

 

That said, I know of many (former) members of the church who agree with you regarding the necessity for historical narratives to match with current church teachings about the BOA. They took the "all true or not true" teaching to heart and found their way out.

[pogi]

That's why I used the phrase "to the extent that." I have no reason to believe the introduction is substantially inaccurate at this point; do you?

 

There is plenty of reason to believe one way or the other.  My two points are 1) Our testimonies should not be based on what the intro says.  It has changed and is subject to further change in the future.  Our testimonies should be based on spiritual experiences. 2) The book itself does not claim historical authenticity anywhere.

Edited December 2, 2014 by pogi

[Robert F. Smith]

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

You're right, Mike.  Indeed, the burden of proof or disproof only matters to a few people, and they have a right to pursue that interest in whatever way they wish.  The thing is, you have to really be interested in sasquatch (pro or con) in order to spend any time studying it, and there may in the meantime be more lucrative or productive things to be done.

 

In any case, a variegated life is usually more interesting and worthwhile.  So people ought to continually broaden themselves, so that they will be more able to deal with unexpected claims and problems along the way.  Life is a buffet, and we ought to taste and sample some of the claimed good stuff to see if it is all it is claimed to be.  Alma 32.

[Scott Lloyd]

To the contrary, the historical record is very clear that Joseph and all others involved in the BOA translation believed that they were performing an actual word-for-word translation of the documents in their possession. To embrace the catalyst theory is to say that Joseph fundamentally misunderstood (or lied) about what he was doing.

 

That said, I know of many (former) members of the church who agree with you regarding the necessity for historical narratives to match with current church teachings about the BOA. They took the "all true or not true" teaching to heart and found their way out.

It's not my purpose here to defend the catalyst theory, which I personally don't hold to, preferring instead the missing papyrus theory.

 

But I maintain there is far less to sustain such a theory with the Book of Mormon than with the Book of Abraham.

[Scott Lloyd]

There is plenty of reason to believe one way or the other.  My two points are 1) Our testimonies should not be based on what the intro says.  It has changed and is subject to further change in the future.  Our testimonies should be based on spiritual experiences. 2) The book itself does not claim historical authenticity anywhere.

The totality of the historical narrative, including the teachings and testimony of Joseph and the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses, overwhelmingly sustains the understanding that the book is an authentic record of an ancient people.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

You're right, Mike.  Indeed, the burden of proof or disproof only matters to a few people, and they have a right to pursue that interest in whatever way they wish.  The thing is, you have to really be interested in sasquatch (pro or con) in order to spend any time studying it, and there may in the meantime be more lucrative or productive things to be done.

 

In any case, a variegated life is usually more interesting and worthwhile.  So people ought to continually broaden themselves, so that they will be more able to deal with unexpected claims and problems along the way.  Life is a buffet, and we ought to taste and sample some of the claimed good stuff to see if it is all it is claimed to be.  Alma 32.

My point, like that of Elder Oaks, is that if antagonists intend to shut the door on any possibility that the book is a true and authentic record, they have a far more onerous task than do believers, who don't purport to be able to prove the book through physical evidence and are content to leave the question open so that an investigator might feel free to go to God himself in prayer about the matter.

[bluebell]

Maybe we need to look at this issue a little differently.

Maybe we shouldn't be arguing about whether or not the BOM is good regardless of its historicity. What we need to discuss is what is good about the BOM from an "it's historically true" point of view, and then decide if those things remain good if it turns out it's not historically true.

It's not whether or not some thing is good, it's what's it good for that matters.

Use the example of Jesus-what is "good" about a belief that Jesus is actually the Son of God as He claimed?

Well, the whole overcoming death and sin thing is what's good about that.

Now we can ask ourselves, does that good remain if Jesus was just a mortal man who was kind and wise but otherwise a fraud?

No, obviously what made Jesus "good" for a Christian does not exist if He lied about who He was. Whether or not His teachings are good is completely beside the point. The reason Jesus was good ceases to exist if He's not who He claimed to be, and if the reason ceases to exist, then He isn't good any longer.

Likewise, we need to ask ourselves, what is God's purpose for giving us the BOM, what makes it "good" for us?

[Scott Lloyd]

Maybe we need to look at this issue a little differently.

Maybe we shouldn't be arguing about whether or not the BOM is good regardless of its historicity. What we need to discuss is what is good about the BOM from an "it's historically true" point of view, and then decide if those things remain good if it turns out it's not historically true.

It's not whether or not some thing is good, it's what's it good for that matters.

Use the example of Jesus-what is "good" about a belief that Jesus is actually the Son of God as He claimed?

Well, the whole overcoming death and sin thing is what's good about that.

Now we can ask ourselves, does that good remain if Jesus was just a mortal man who was kind and wise but otherwise a fraud?

No, obviously what made Jesus "good" for a Christian does not exist if He lied about who He was. Whether or not His teachings are good is completely beside the point. The reason Jesus was good ceases to exist if He's not who He claimed to be, and if the reason ceases to exist, then He isn't good any longer.

Likewise, we need to ask ourselves, what is God's purpose for giving us the BOM, what makes it "good" for us?

That's a good approach.

 

And, following your reasoning, there is much about the restored Church of Jesus Christ and the message of Mormonism that turns out to be not true or not good if the Book of Mormon is a fraud.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

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.

 

 

 

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:

 

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

I think you really should read this line again, and I will make it more bold.

 

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.  - Elder Oaks

 

Elder Oaks said that.

 

You quoted it.

 

Case closed.  Read what it says until it sinks in.  I believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon because it has been confirmed by the spirit, NOT secular evidence.

 

In short my belief in the BOM as historical is a STATEMENT OF FAITH and is not proven by evidence any more than the atonement is proven by physical evidence

 

I agree with Elder Oaks.  There is not much else to say about it.

Edited December 2, 2014 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

My point, like that of Elder Oaks, is that if antagonists intend to shut the door on any possibility that the book is a true and authentic record, they have a far more onerous task than do believers, who don't purport to be able to prove the book through physical evidence and are content to leave the question open so that an investigator might feel free to go to God himself in prayer about the matter.

that's a whole other point, one in which I could possibly agree with, then suggesting one can not reasonably still remain a faithful member but believe the Book of Mormon is not historical.

[mfbukowski]

Maybe we need to look at this issue a little differently.

Maybe we shouldn't be arguing about whether or not the BOM is good regardless of its historicity. What we need to discuss is what is good about the BOM from an "it's historically true" point of view, and then decide if those things remain good if it turns out it's not historically true.

It's not whether or not some thing is good, it's what's it good for that matters.

Use the example of Jesus-what is "good" about a belief that Jesus is actually the Son of God as He claimed?

Well, the whole overcoming death and sin thing is what's good about that.

Now we can ask ourselves, does that good remain if Jesus was just a mortal man who was kind and wise but otherwise a fraud?

No, obviously what made Jesus "good" for a Christian does not exist if He lied about who He was. Whether or not His teachings are good is completely beside the point. The reason Jesus was good ceases to exist if He's not who He claimed to be, and if the reason ceases to exist, then He isn't good any longer.

Likewise, we need to ask ourselves, what is God's purpose for giving us the BOM, what makes it "good" for us?

I think that is it exactly.

[Buckeye]

... I believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon because it has been confirmed by the spirit, NOT secular evidence.

 

In short my belief in the BOM as historical is a STATEMENT OF FAITH and is not proven by evidence any more than the atonement is proven by physical evidence ...

 

 

That's fine, but you need to make sure people understand your definition of "historicity" when discussing the issue. For most people (including many Mormons) historicity means verifiable by secular means. To say that something is historical as "confirmed by the spirit" makes no sense as the term is generally understood. So while you can be your own lexicographer, to have a fruitful discussion you must make it clear from the outset that your definition is more expansive than the general one.

[bluebell]

That's a good approach.

And, following your reasoning, there is much about the restored Church of Jesus Christ and the message of Mormonism that turns out to be not true or not good if the Book of Mormon is a fraud.

One "good" thing about the BOM is that it is another testimony or witness of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

So, if Jesus never spoke to the prophets of the BOM--if He never visited the American continent or taught them the sermon on the mount or set apart 12 disciples or appeared to nephi to teach him about the condescension of God--is the BOM still a good witness of Christ?

No, I don't think a fable can ever legitimately serve as a witness of a real Being. It can teach the same teachings as a Christ but that is not the same thing as being a witness. A witness must have actual experience with the person it is being a witness of or for.

So can the BOM be a good witness if it's not historical? No. So does whether or not it's historical matter? From my perspective, absolutely.

Edited December 2, 2014 by bluebell

[bluebell]

That's fine, but you need to make sure people understand your definition of "historicity" when discussing the issue. For most people (including many Mormons) historicity means verifiable by secular means. To say that something is historical as "confirmed by the spirit" makes no sense as the term is generally understood. So while you can be your own lexicographer, to have a fruitful discussion you must make it clear from the outset that your definition is more expansive than the general one.

I don't think this is true.

When it comes to whether or not religious events actually happened or specific religious people ever existed, I've never met anyone (mormon or otherwise) who believed in the historicity of something religious because it was first proven through secular means. There are probably some people out there like that but they are definitely in the minority.

[pogi]

The totality of the historical narrative, including the teachings and testimony of Joseph and the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses, overwhelmingly sustains the understanding that the book is an authentic record of an ancient people.

 

I agree that the historical narrative leans towards it's historicity.  While I tend to believe the historical narrative, I do not limit myself to it.  The only thing that I claim to know is that I am on the path that God wants me to be on and that I feel really good when I read the Book of Mormon and live by its precepts.  The narrative doesn't change that.  I can't say I know one way or the other, but I do believe. 

 

If I had to accept the "totality of the historical narrative" of our church, I wouldn't know what to believe anymore quite honestly. 

[pogi]

One "good" thing about the BOM is that it is another testimony or witness of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

So, if Jesus never spoke to the prophets of the BOM--if He never visited the American continent or taught them the sermon on the mount or set apart 12 disciples or appeared to nephi to teach him about the condescension of God--is the BOM still a good witness of Christ?

No, I don't think a fable can ever legitimately serve as a witness of a real Being. It can teach the same teachings as a Christ but that is not the same thing as being a witness. A witness must have actual experience with the person it is being a witness of or for.

So can the BOM be a good witness if it's not historical? No. So does whether or not it's historical matter? From my perspective, absolutely.

 

If the BoM is the inspired teachings of Christ, than it is a testament of Him either way.

[rockpond]

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.

 

I love the Book of Mormon.  I love studying it by myself.  I love reading it with my family.  The characters are beautiful.  The narrators are fascinating.  And the doctrines taught therein are true.  

 

I have no personal conviction of the book's historicity but I have an undeniable testimony of it as the word of God.  If all the characters were fictional -- my above statements would still stand.  And I wouldn't walk away from the church over a minor issue like historicity of the Book of Mormon.

[Rob Osborn]

If the BoM is the inspired teachings of Christ, than it is a testament of Him either way.

Its truly only a testament of him if it is true. If it is just inspired (didnt really happen but still contain truth) it is not a testament of Christ.

[pogi]

Christ's often taught in story form, should I discard their true message as false or not from Christ because the stories were not real?  His ability to teach truth through fictional story is no less a testament of Him.  His stories are a testament of Him.

Edited December 2, 2014 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

I think you really should read this line again, and I will make it more bold.

 

 

Elder Oaks said that.

 

You quoted it.

 

Case closed.  Read what it says until it sinks in.  I believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon because it has been confirmed by the spirit, NOT secular evidence.

 

In short my belief in the BOM as historical is a STATEMENT OF FAITH and is not proven by evidence any more than the atonement is proven by physical evidence

 

I agree with Elder Oaks.  There is not much else to say about it.

Um, I don't see anything here that I've disputed or even questioned.

 

In fact, I don't really understand the purpose of your response.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[theplains]

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. 

 

The location is in Daviess County, Missouri as shown by the Joseph Smith papers and D&C 116:1.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Robert F. Smith]

.......................................................

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.

Sounds fair to me.  But what are you going to do when someone flips a coin, heads I win, tails you lose?  Isn't that how it usually goes?