Book Of Mormon Historicity: Does It Matter?

[Rob Osborn]

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.

I see the historicity of the BoM as being paramount to our faith. If the characters were fictional i would have to leave the church and find a different religion. It has to be that way I believe.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

I agree.  I never concerned myself with historicity of the BofM when I was young.  Somehow I just believed that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon was real scripture.  With the passage of over half a century since then, I know a lot more about both Joseph and the BofM, but I still believe both.  We can both take things on faith as well as put forward secular, scientific reasons for our beliefs -- when that is possible.  I see no problem with that.

[bluebell]

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

It's really not.

The word testament as used by the BOM has a specific definition. To be another witness of Jesus Christ.

Can something (like a book) testify of something else (like Christ) if the author has no experience with it?

Could you testify that Ice is cold if you've never had any experience with ice? Even if someone else told you ice was cold, could you witness to that fact? You could teach some that ice is cold, but you can't be a witness of it or testify of it.

Being a witness, or testifying to something, is more than just repeating a truth to a new audience.

If the BOM isn't historically true, it could still teach if Christ but it couldn't testify or be a witness of Him.

[rockpond]

I see the historicity of the BoM as being paramount to our faith. If the characters were fictional i would have to leave the church and find a different religion. It has to be that way I believe.

 

Well, I hope that you never encounter anything that makes you question your faith in the historicity of those characters.  It would be sad to have you leave.

[pogi]

I see the historicity of the BoM as being paramount to our faith.

 

Do you mean "your" faith?  Other people here claim that their faith would continue.

[stemelbow]

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.

A testimony of Christ is every bit as good for those who don't physically see Him, as it is for those who do, at least that's the message that's come out as people press to find out if the 15 have seen Christ.

[bluebell]

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.

Did Christ ever declare they were true stories that actually happened?

And His stories are not evidence of His divinity. They don't testify of Him anymore than Aesop's fables testify of Aesop.

[stemelbow]

It's really not.

The word testament as used by the BOM has a specific definition. To be another witness of Jesus Christ.

Can something (like a book) testify of something else (like Christ) if the author has no experience with it?

Could you testify that Ice is cold if you've never had any experience with ice? Even if someone else told you ice was cold, could you witness to that fact? You could teach some that ice is cold, but you can't be a witness of it or testify of it.

Being a witness, or testifying to something, is more than just repeating a truth to a new audience.

If the BOM isn't historically true, it could still teach if Christ but it couldn't testify or be a witness of Him.

Sure it can. That's the whole point of telling us a personal witness of Christ by not seeing Him is just as good as if one sees Him. If the Book was written and the characters never saw Him, it can still witness of Christ, because, if scripture, it came to us through Christ.

It may mean it's not as good as if it were authentically historical, but don't condemn it for the mistakes of men.

Edited December 2, 2014 by stemelbow

[Anteojito]

I see the historicity of the BoM as being paramount to our faith. If the characters were fictional i would have to leave the church and find a different religion. It has to be that way I believe.

With the BoM being the keystone of the church, its historicity is indeed paramount. I don't know how someone could adopt an attitude that it is inspired fiction or completely allegorical (as I have seen some say). Too many of the past prophets have stated that it is historically true. I would think that God would have told somebody by now.

 

I do think that parts of the BoM could be untrue and the book itself still be historically true. For example we only know Nephi's side of the story of his family's adventures. It could be possible that he was not as nearly righteous and L & L weren't really as bad as he let on. Maybe the temple he built was not really anything like Solomon's temple. Maybe Ammon didn't really cut off all of those guy's arms and so on. The BoM could still be historically true even if parts of it were exaggerated or even totally made up.

 

Other parts though, have to be historically true. Jesus has to have visited the Americas after his resurrection. The BoM has to have been written on gold plates and buried in a hill.  There has to have been a Moroni and a Mormon. There has to have been Lamanites and Nephites etc.

 

How could Moroni;s promise work if the book is historical fiction?

[pogi]

The word testament as used by the BOM has a specific definition. To be another witness of Jesus Christ.

 

I consider myself to be a witness of Jesus Christ.  I have never seen Him in this life, yet I can testify of Him.  My relationship with him is more real than anything I know.  I don't believe that all old testament prophets saw Christ, yet they wrote a testament of Him.  Some of the "testaments" in the Old Testament are considered to be fictional, yet testaments none the less.

 

Can something (like a book) testify of something else (like Christ) if the author has no experience with it?

A book, fictional or not, certainly testifies of it's author.  It's very existence is testament.  Joseph Smith certainly did not author those words, neither did the Nephites, but God is the author as claimed by both the Nephites and Joseph Smith.

 

Could you testify that Ice is cold if you've never had any experience with ice? Even if someone else told you ice was cold, could you witness to that fact? You could teach some that ice is cold, but you can't be a witness of it or testify of it.

 

I can testify that Christ lives.  I don't need to see Him to experience Him.

 

Being a witness, or testifying to something, is more than just repeating a truth to a new audience.

 

Either way you look at The Book of Mormon, it cannot be accurately described as "just repeating a truth".   Whether ancient or modern, it gives new light.

 

If the BOM isn't historically true, it could still teach if Christ but it couldn't testify or be a witness of Him.

 

It's very existence is a testimony of Him, regardless of how you look at it.  He is the author, it cannot exist without Him.  Whether through ancient or modern prophets, they are His words.  That's all I know, I don't need anything more to testify of it.

[pogi]

Did Christ ever declare they were true stories that actually happened?

 

Often times he never said one way or another, but it is simply assumed.

 

And His stories are not evidence of His divinity. They don't testify of Him anymore than Aesop's fables testify of Aesop.

 

If those stories are given by Him through a prophet, they are evidence of His divinity.  Much like the story of Job (If you will allow me that one).  

Edited December 2, 2014 by pogi

[mnn727]

Depends on how you define historical.

To me every individual detail is not that important, but the basic premise of it must be. 

[Rivers]

I've felt a spiritual witness reading the Book of Mormon. Should that spiritual witness automatically compel me to believe that everything in the book is historically accurate? It didn't really do that. I am left with a witness of the Savior but I still have questions. So in my case the Book of Mormon acted as testament of Christ. Did the book have to be historical to give me that witness?

[mnn727]

Joseph Smith certainly did not author those words, neither did the Nephites, but God is the author as claimed by both the Nephites and Joseph Smith.

 

 

CFR on the bold parts. The Nephite Prophets did indeed write the BoM.

[Rivers]

Depends on how you define historical.

To me every individual detail is not that important, but the basic premise of it must be.

Kind of like the Gospels. Everything in all four gospels can't possibly be true. But the basic premise of gospels must be true.

[pogi]

CFR on the bold parts. The Nephite Prophets did indeed write the BoM.

 

You know what I mean.  Nobody is claiming that Christ Himself put pen to paper, or chisel to gold in this case.

Edited December 2, 2014 by pogi

[bluebell]

Sure it can. That's the whole point of telling us a personal witness of Christ by not seeing Him is just as good as if one sees Him. If the Book was written and the characters never saw Him, it can still witness of Christ, because, if scripture, it came to us through Christ.

It may mean it's not as good as if it were authentically historical, but don't condemn it for the mistakes of men.

I didn't ever claim that someone had to SEE Christ before they could be a witness of Him.

I've said that they have to have a real experience to use as evidence. A spiritual experience is a real experience and that can be enough, but there must be something.

A fake story cannot testify of Christ anymore than a fable can be used as a witness in court. It could teach of Him, but not testify of His existence.

[Avatar4321]

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

I agree. The burden of proof is on the Lord. He assumed it when He inspired Moroni with the promise.

our burden is following the invitation to find out

[bluebell]

I consider myself to be a witness of Jesus Christ. I have never seen Him in this life, yet I can testify of Him. My relationship with him is more real than anything I know. I don't believe that all old testament prophets saw Christ, yet they wrote a testament of Him. Some of the "testaments" in the Old Testament are considered to be fictional, yet testaments none the less.

A book, fictional or not, certainly testifies of it's author. It's very existence is testament. Joseph Smith certainly did not author those words, neither did the Nephites, but God is the author as claimed by both the Nephites and Joseph Smith.

I can testify that Christ lives. I don't need to see Him to experience Him.

Either way you look at The Book of Mormon, it cannot be accurately described as "just repeating a truth". Whether ancient or modern, it gives new light.

It's very existence is a testimony of Him, regardless of how you look at it. He is the author, it cannot exist without Him. Whether through ancient or modern prophets, they are His words. That's all I know, I don't need anything more to testify of it.

First, I never claimed someone had to see Christ before they could be a witness if Him. But they must have some experience with Him. It can't be made up.

Second, a fictional book can testify that an author exists but it can't testify anything factual about him or about its subject.

The BOM doesn't purport to be a testament to the fact that it's author existed. It's a testimony that Jesus is the Christ. A BOM myth cannot testify anything factual about Christ anymore than Beauty and the Beast can testify anything factual about Belle.

Myths and fairy tales can TEACH but they can't WITNESS or TESTIFY.

[rodheadlee]

I wonder who the burden will be with on Judgment Day?

[Avatar4321]

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

people do make mistakes. But how does one mistakenly translate gold plates given to you by an angel? How does one get other people to see said plates.

Joseph was not mistaken. Not was he insincere. So what options are left?

[bluebell]

Just wanted to add that I don't really care if someone believes the BOM is historical or not.

I'm just explaining why I agree with Oaks on the matter.

[Avatar4321]

I wonder who the burden will be with on Judgment Day?

depends on the burden. The burden of proof is on the Lord. The burden to seek Him for the proof is on us.

[pogi]

First, I never claimed someone had to see Christ before they could be a witness if Him. But they must have some experience with Him. It can't be made up.

 

That's all I am claiming too.  If the BoM is inspired through Joseph Smith.  That would count as experience with Him in my book.

 

Second, a fictional book can testify that an author exists but it can't testify anything factual about him or about its subject.

 

My point is that Christ is the author.  Therefore, it IS a testimony of Him, that He lives and is therefore the Christ and that he speaks to us through prophets.  A fictional book can teach eternal truths and principles, which is where the Book of Mormon really shines.

 

The BOM doesn't purport to be a testament to the fact that it's author existed. It's a testimony that Jesus is the Christ. A BOM myth cannot testify anything factual about Christ anymore than Beauty and the Beast can testify anything factual about Belle.

 

Myths and fairy tales can TEACH but they can't WITNESS or TESTIFY.

 

See above.  The only fact that I need for it to be a testament that Jesus is the Christ, is that He lives.  His authorship is all that I would need for that.  The fact that the Book exists is a witness and does testify of Him.

 

Just wanted to add that I don't really care if someone believes the BOM is historical or not.

I'm just explaining why I agree with Oaks on the matter.

 

I actually believe that it is historical as well.  I don't see it as necessary for faith.  Just as there are people here who's faith is dependent on its historicity, I know of some people who's testimony is dependent upon it being fictional.  I believe both sides are weak.

[bluebell]

That's all I am claiming too. If the BoM is inspired through Joseph Smith. That would count as experience with Him in my book.

My point is that Christ is the author. Therefore, it IS a testimony of Him, that He lives and is therefore the Christ and that he speaks to us through prophets. A fictional book can teach eternal truths and principles, which is where the Book of Mormon really shines.

See above. The only fact that I need for it to be a testament that Jesus is the Christ, is that He lives. His authorship is all that I would need for that. The fact that the Book exists is a witness and does testify of Him.

I actually believe that it is historical as well. I don't see it as necessary for faith. Just as there are people here who's faith is dependent on its historicity, I know of some people who's testimony is dependent upon it being fictional. I believe both sides are weak.

I think we've said about all we can say to each other at this point.

Let's agree to disagree.