Book Of Mormon Historicity: Does It Matter?

[tonie]

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.

 

"And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear".  Do you learn from parables

[mfbukowski]

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.

Maybe you missed the earlier posts.

 

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

If my definition is more expansive than the "general one" you better tell Elder Oaks that he didn't get it right either.

[mfbukowski]

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'd like to see someone prove the atonement secularly. The whole idea is absurd.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Exactly.

Where and when did the prodigal son live? What about the good Samaritan? They are parables? Oh gosh, out they go. They have no value whatsoever.

[mfbukowski]

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.

OK sorry- misunderstanding then.

[Rob Osborn]

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?

I agree that some points in the story may be told from only one perspective, etc. But yeah, Jesus coming, the Nephites and Lamanites, etc, yeah, they all have to be real. If we assume, or have faith that it is real then all the other miracles such as the translation, visitation of angels, etc, in Joseph Smiths day makes our religion not only real but also true.

[readstoomuch]

I like Blake ostler's The Book of Mormon as a modern expansion of an Ancient Source. It helps me to understand true historical elements that are then mixed in with anachronisms that I struggle with. Mostly, I just like reading the book.

Edited December 3, 2014 by readstoomuch

[mfbukowski]

I remember this topic coming up several times a year.

The attitude here is much softer this time around than I ever remember before. It seems people are starting to understand that historicity is a religious belief, and here we have Elder Oaks essentially agreeing with that position.

[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.

 

 

OK sorry- misunderstanding then.

I think perhaps you are neglecting an essential component of Elder Oaks's message. Granted, physical evidence can neither prove nor disprove the Book of Mormon, and its authenticity depends on a witness of the Holy Spirit. But that understanding does not mandate refusing or declining to rebut attacks and unsound or specious argumentation as they come up and when one is in a position to do so. Why is such rebuttal useful? Because it keeps the playing field level. It leaves the question open so that the sincere seeker need not regard it as fruitless to take the matter to the Lord and need not abandon the effort without even trying.

 

In the paper I linked to, Elder Oaks acknowledged:

 

It is not my purpose to comment on any of these lesser issues, either those that are said to confirm the Book of Mormon or those that are said to disprove it.

Those lesser issues are, however, worthy of attention. Elder Neal A. Maxwell quoted Austin Farrer's explanation: "Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish."²

 

 

Thus, at least two apostles have cited that pithy quote from Austin Farrer, one that Daniel Peterson has repeated several times over the years. We therefore have two apostles' endorsement of apologetics, which in this context can be defined as reasoned defense of the faith.

 

Far too many of our own people have bought into the absurd and malignant notion that there is something dishonorable or unwise about engaging in apologetics. For too many, it has become fashionable to use the word "apologist' as as slur.

 

As Elder Oaks said on the matter of secular evidence proving or disproving the Book of Mormon, we can and should be content with a standoff or a draw. But that does not entail surrendering the field to the foe without any resistance whatsoever.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

I think perhaps you are neglecting an essential component of Elder Oaks's message. Granted, physical evidence can neither prove nor disprove the Book of Mormon, and its authenticity depends on a witness of the Holy Spirit. But that understanding does not mandate refusing or declining to rebut attacks and unsound or specious argumentation as they come up and when one is in a position to do so. Why is such rebuttal useful? Because it keeps the playing field level. It leaves the question open so that the sincere seeker need not regard it as fruitless to take the matter to the Lord and need not abandon the effort without even trying.

 

In the paper I linked to, Elder Oaks acknowledged:

 

 

Thus, at least two apostles have cited that pithy quote from Austin Farrer, one that Daniel Peterson has repeated several times over the years. We therefore have two apostles' endorsement of apologetics, which in this context can be defined as reasoned defense of the faith.

 

Far too many of our own people have bought into the absurd and malignant notion that there is something dishonorable or unwise about engaging in apologetics. For too many, it has become fashionable to use the word "apologist' as as slur.

 

As Elder Oaks said on the matter of secular evidence proving or disproving the Book of Mormon, we can and should be content with a standoff or a draw. But that does not entail surrendering the field to the foe without any resistance whatsoever.

Edit:

After re-reading Elder Oaks article, I realized that my earlier post was incorrect.  I was in a hurry and misread the quote in question.  I have no problem with the article

Edited December 4, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Freedom]

Historical and cultural context is extremely important in understanding the message of any text. Without understanding why an action is taken it is more difficult to apply it to our own day. Despite this handicap, however, the book of Mormon remains remarkably clear and easy to apply. Historicity helps with a lot of the nuances for sure, but the overarching principles generally remain clear. Few people learn the history of the new testament  but still glean enough to learn the gospel. 

 

Would knowing the history of the Nephites help a member of the church gain a better understanding of the 9 fundamental doctrines of the church? I am not certain this would be the case. 

[mfbukowski]

Edit:

After re-reading Elder Oaks article, I realized that my earlier post was incorrect.  I was in a hurry and misread the quote in question.  I have no problem with the article

Elder Oaks raises a very interesting question/statement at the very end of the article in question

 

 

6.  I have also illustrated that not all scholars disdain the value of religious belief and the legitimacy of the supernatural when applied to theological truth. Some even criticize the "intellectual provincialism" of those who apply the methods of historical criticism to the Book of Mormon.

 

What does that mean??

 

I think he is saying we must value historical scholarship (I have no problem with that idea, in general) and that considering the "supernatural" is "legitimate" in discussing "theological truth".   No problem there.   The second sentence is the punchline.

 

Is he agreeing there that those who DO apply the methods of historical criticism to the BOM are "intellectually provincial" because it is a theological work??

 

Is that what he is saying??

[Scott Lloyd]

Historical and cultural context is extremely important in understanding the message of any text. Without understanding why an action is taken it is more difficult to apply it to our own day. Despite this handicap, however, the book of Mormon remains remarkably clear and easy to apply. Historicity helps with a lot of the nuances for sure, but the overarching principles generally remain clear. Few people learn the history of the new testament  but still glean enough to learn the gospel. 

 

Would knowing the history of the Nephites help a member of the church gain a better understanding of the 9 fundamental doctrines of the church? I am not certain this would be the case.

Not sure I get your point.

You don't have to "know the history of the Nephtes" to accept that they existed and that the Book of Mormon is an authentic record."

To take your New Testament example, one might not have a scholarly knowledge about Istaelite culture at the time of Christ, but it makes a great deal of difference, it seems to me, whether one accepts that Jesus Christ actually exists as opposed to being a fictional creation.

Do you understand the meaning of <historicity>? It means <historical authenticity>.

[Scott Lloyd]

Elder Oaks raises a very interesting question/statement at the very end of the article in question

 

What does that mean??

 

I think he is saying we must value historical scholarship (I have no problem with that idea, in general) and that considering the "supernatural" is "legitimate" in discussing "theological truth".   No problem there.   The second sentence is the punchline.

 

Is he agreeing there that those who DO apply the methods of historical criticism to the BOM are "intellectually provincial" because it is a theological work??

 

Is that what he is saying??

I think he's adding emphasis to his point that not all scholars reject religious belief as a tool for ascertaining truth.

[mfbukowski]

I think he's adding emphasis to his point that not all scholars reject religious belief as a tool for ascertaining truth.

I suppose you are right, but I really see it as stronger than that.  Right on Elder Oaks!.

[Freedom]

Not sure I get your point.

You don't have to "know the history of the Nephtes" to accept that they existed and that the Book of Mormon is an authentic record."

To take your New Testament example, one might not have a scholarly knowledge about Istaelite culture at the time of Christ, but it makes a great deal of difference, it seems to me, whether one accepts that Jesus Christ actually exists as opposed to being a fictional creation.

Do you understand the meaning of <historicity>? It means <historical authenticity>.

My point is that we do not have to know the history or historicity to glean eternal principles. Knowing where the Nephites lived, what language they spoke, or how their society was structured will not lend a lot of insight into King Benjamin's discourse on service. We have gained a lot of knowledge of the old testament people, but none of this knowledge has greatly enhanced our understanding of the principles being taught. The scholar has no greater understanding of forgiveness than the uneducated reader of the scriptures. 

[stemelbow]

My point is that we do not have to know the history or historicity to glean eternal principles. Knowing where the Nephites lived, what language they spoke, or how their society was structured will not lend a lot of insight into King Benjamin's discourse on service. We have gained a lot of knowledge of the old testament people, but none of this knowledge has greatly enhanced our understanding of the principles being taught. The scholar has no greater understanding of forgiveness than the uneducated reader of the scriptures.

is history not helpful to instruct? I don't know that any would say it is all there is to instruct, but can it offer helpful insight that someone, perhaps, would not imagine without history's story?

[Gervin]

is history not helpful to instruct? I don't know that any would say it is all there is to instruct, but can it offer helpful insight that someone, perhaps, would not imagine without history's story?

It's certainly been helpful for my understanding of the Bible.  It helps with an understanding of location and activities (obviously), but also context.  In this sense, the Bible "lives" - real peoples in real places.

[SmileyMcGee]

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.

Oh MFB...sometimes I wish I had the chance to sit down with you for a few hours and pick your brain. I think it would be a fascinating experience. Your comments are so often intriguing and frustrating at the same time. Edited December 5, 2014 by SmileyMcGee

[Robert F. Smith]

I remember this topic coming up several times a year.

The attitude here is much softer this time around than I ever remember before. It seems people are starting to understand that historicity is a religious belief, and here we have Elder Oaks essentially agreeing with that position.

That may be so, Mark, but we ought to be able to consider also whether and to what extent the events which took place at Gettysburg in July 1863 and at the Little Big Horn in June 1876 are more than some imaginary, supernatural belief.  That those events have historicity is not in question, although some of the details may be.  Evaluating Book of Mormon narrative claims may be more distant in time and culture, but the basic historiograhical issues are the same,  Does the Book of Mormon have no more historicity than Middle Earth and the Hobbit?  Or does it describe a real time and place, which can be recovered archeologically?

[Robert F. Smith]

It's certainly been helpful for my understanding of the Bible.  It helps with an understanding of location and activities (obviously), but also context.  In this sense, the Bible "lives" - real peoples in real places.

Of course.  Makes good sense.

[mfbukowski]

That may be so, Mark, but we ought to be able to consider also whether and to what extent the events which took place at Gettysburg in July 1863 and at the Little Big Horn in June 1876 are more than some imaginary, supernatural belief.  That those events have historicity is not in question, although some of the details may be.  Evaluating Book of Mormon narrative claims may be more distant in time and culture, but the basic historiograhical issues are the same,  Does the Book of Mormon have no more historicity than Middle Earth and the Hobbit?  Or does it describe a real time and place, which can be recovered archeologically?

If one believed that the Battle of Gettysburg was the Great Battle which issued in the Millennium in which we are now living, and therefore that Reverent Moon is the savior, we would have an analogy.  Imagine there is a prophecy somewhere in someone's sacred writings speaking of the Armies of the North defeating the Armies of the South, which indicates the most important event in spiritual history, perhaps analogous to the war in heaven, or the Battle of Armageddon.

 

The problem is not whether or not the events of the Book of Mormon "really happened", the problem is the spiritual significance of the events and thinking that the history somehow proves the spiritual significance.  We could have a dated video of the crucfixion and all it would show is a man dying.  It would not prove that that man was the Son of God, the Christ, the Annointed One.

 

When I get a chance I will quote something out of a book by James Faulconer that I am reading now, where he makes the same point I am making- he just does it better.

[mfbukowski]

Oh MFB...sometimes I wish I had the chance to sit down with you for a few hours and pick your brain. I think it would be a fascinating experience. Your comments are so often intriguing and frustrating at the same time.

Well I would be willing if the geography was feasible.  But the issue is that historical facts do not define the religious significance of those "facts"

[mfbukowski]

It's certainly been helpful for my understanding of the Bible.  It helps with an understanding of location and activities (obviously), but also context.  In this sense, the Bible "lives" - real peoples in real places.

See my only problem is that how do you know that those people are not legendary?

 

I mean Batman is about New York, but there is no real Batman.  Sherlock Holmes was about London- in a detailed way- but there was no real Sherlock Holmes.

 

So suppose your belief in the Bible is analogous to a religion based on the "prophet" Sherlock Holmes who had nearly supernatural powers in deducing things about people from the crease in their trousers or some such other tiny detail no one else would notice?

 

Are the works of Shakespeare any less significant if they were written by Bacon?

[mfbukowski]

 Does the Book of Mormon have no more historicity than Middle Earth and the Hobbit?  Or does it describe a real time and place, which can be recovered archeologically?

I believe it does, but it is a religious belief.

 

If one's belief in the Book of Mormon is based on archeology, in it's present state, I would say that one would be in serious trouble

 

If its truth is based on archeology and the case is so convincing, why are not people joining the church in droves?