Book Of Mormon Historicity: Does It Matter?

[Jeanne]

The Psalms are poetry, there is quite a bit of Proverbial and Wisdom Literature, and there are parables: these do not purport to be literal history (although one can find verifiable historic elements within these writings).

I purposefully stated that historic Biblical is not the basis for faith.  There is a difference in our positions: I have a faith in Christ and Christ does not require me to divide my faith among Him and the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the LDS Church.  I also have the intellectual knowledge of a scripture (the Bible) that is not set in a fictional milieu. 

 

I guess everyone decides if evidence is important to their faith and to what extent. 

 

No, the evidence is accepted because it is fact-based.  The extent that I apply it to my faith - or not - is a personal decision.  But the fact that the Bible has provenance and the Book of Mormon does not is a differentiation that you don't seem willing to make.

 

 

If Christians become archaeologists to support their faith, then all Christian archaeologists would do their study and work in locations with Biblical connections.  That certainly is not the case.  Biblical Archeology Review, by it's name, recruits kids for their summer digs by promoting the Biblical locales.  Having visited a number of these digs firsthand I can confidently say that "supporting their faith" is not a key motivator.

 

But I do know intellectually that the Bible contains many examples of factually verified context.  It has nothing to do with faith.

 

I said nothing about connecting religious truthfulness to evidence.  I specifically disassociated the two. 

 

I may be mis-remembering, but I believe you've stated that if the Book of Mormon was entirely fiction it wouldn't matter; the religious principles would override those considerations.  Apologies if I've paraphrased you wrongly.  I think the Bible has an advantage over the Book of Mormon because the Bible isn't a work of fiction with regard to its setting, people group, and culture ... and that insights into these elements help one understand the context of the religious teachings, the meaning of the teaching, and the application of these teachings. 

Also, the Bible isn't claimed to be the most correct book on earth. 

[Jeanne]

We need to get away from saying Joseph translated the gold plates, that's deceiving.

Especially if he is listed as "author" on the BOM sales on Amazon.

[rongo]

Who else is Amazon supposed to list as the author? God? The angel Moroni?  

[ERayR]

We need to get away from saying Joseph translated the gold plates, that's deceiving.

What would you like to call it?  Which website have you been visiting?

[mfbukowski]

Also, the Bible isn't claimed to be the most correct book on earth.

And that is a very good thing!

Of course the Book of Mormon does not either.

Neither of them say a word about Quantum Physics either. Neither are of any value, then, clearly.

[Vance]

We need to get away from saying Joseph translated the gold plates, that's deceiving.

 

It is not, especially when you understand what the definition of "translate" was and is.

 

It is not limited to the just taking one language into another.  It is about moving something from one state being or existence to another state of being or existence.

 

Thus Moses (or Elijah or whoever) was "translated".

 

The only error in that statement is "gold plates".

Edited December 8, 2014 by Vance

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

We need to get away from saying Joseph translated the gold plates, that's deceiving.

OK, I am sure you can make a case that JS didn't translate the plates through the gift and power of God. This is a formal CFR.

[Robert F. Smith]

This can occur. Perhaps you could give an example from the book of mormon that would apply, or a passage of the book of mormon that remains unclear in terms of what gospel principle it is trying to convey. I do not reject the important of the research, but such research has not made any changes to how we understand the principles of the gospel. 

There are a number of such instances which come immediately to mind, though they may not all fit within your narrow spectrum of Gospel principles:

 

John W. Welch (Prof. at BYU Law School) has written a book in which he describes the legal cases in the Book of Mormon based on his expertise on ancient Near Eastern law (he regularly presents papers on the subject in non-Mormon ancient legal forums).  In each instance he is able to clarify what is actually going on and why -- something which escapes most of us.  See Welch, The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon (BYU Press/Maxwell Institute, 2008).  See review at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V42N03_191.pdf .

 

In both the Bible and Book of Mormon, analysts have found examples of formal ancient Near Eastern covenantal structures.  One fine article on this can be found in Stephen D. Ricks, "Kingship, Coronation, and Covenant in Mosiah 1-6," in J. Welch & S. Ricks, eds., King Benjamin's Speech (Provo: FARMS, 1998), 233-275.

 

In both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are also found numerous instances of temple rites of the kind which Mormons understand embody the formal endowment rites of passage.  Much of this remains unpublished for the Book of Mormon, due to obvious problems with the sacred nature of those rites (See, for example, J. Spencer, An Other Testament, 42-63, with strong Israelite temple motifs; K. Christensen, “The Temple, the Monarchy, and Wisdom,” cited in Lindsay, “Temple Blindness,” online at http://blog.fairmormon.org/2014/05/15/temple-blindness/).  However, the biblical material has been widely published.  On Gen 1 - 3, and other biblical temple texts, see 

 

John Kselman JBL 97:164 n.15; Shea Origins 5:9-38; B. Porten HUCA 38:95; N. Habel Literary Crit., 69-70; S. McEvenue Narrative 49-50,81,114; K. Westerman Genesis Accounts 14ff.; Kempf JTTL 7/4:33-53; Francis Landy, “The Song of Songs in the Garden of Eden,” JBL, 98 (Dec 1979):513-528, re Songs 6:2-11; R. Hendel, “Tangled Plots in Genesis,” in A. Beck, et al., eds., Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman (Eerdmans, 1995), 40, citing for further detail H. C. White, Narration and Discourse in the Book of Genesis (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991), 130-135; cf. R. Hendel, “Getting Back to the Garden of Eden,” Bible Review, 14/6 (Dec 1998):17,47; Medina cites E. Vogelzang and W. J. van Bekkum, “Meaning and Symbolism of Clothing in Ancient Near Eastern Texts,” in H. Vanstiphout, et al., eds., Scripta Signa Vocis (Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1986), 267,273; D. Bokovoy, Athoring the OT, I:42-45, citing Mark Smith, The Priestly Vision of Genesis I, 76-77; Hayim ben Yosef Tawil, Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew (KTAV, 2009), 285-286, discusses the “setting” of the Song of Songs as “the royal couple in their natural environment in the garden.  Consequently, in light of both Akk. epigraphical and iconographical sources, perhaps [ʻereś] in SoS 1:16 might be the etymological and the semantic equivalent of Akk. qirsu” or qersu, meaning “a sacred area; arbor, bower”; G. Lloyd Carr, “Is the Song of Songs a ‘Sacred Marriage’ Drama?” JETS, 2 (June 1979):103-114; cf. S. N. Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite: Aspects of Faith, Myth, and Ritual in Ancient Sumer (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1969), 99; Michael Golder, Isaiah as Liturgy (Ashgate Publ., 2004); E. F. Campbell, Ruth, AB 7 (Doubleday, 1975), 118-119; Clifford, CBQ, 39:574.

As to polygamy, the corrected manuscript readings of Jacob (2:22-30,34, 3:5) make it clear that polygamy can only be practiced at the suffrance of God, not based on our own value judgments, where some had mistakenly thought that it was always prohibited by God.

[Robert F. Smith]

Especially if he is listed as "author" on the BOM sales on Amazon.

As he was in the 1830 edition, simply because he was legally required to do so:  See 

 

John W. Welch, "Joseph Smith: Author and Proprietor," in John W. Welch, Reexploring the Book of Mormon (SLC: Deseret Book/Provo: FARMS, 1992),154–156.

[ERayR]

 

There are a number of such instances which come immediately to mind, though they may not all fit within your narrow spectrum of Gospel principles:

 

John W. Welch (Prof. at BYU Law School) has written a book in which he describes the legal cases in the Book of Mormon based on his expertise on ancient Near Eastern law (he regularly presents papers on the subject in non-Mormon ancient legal forums).  In each instance he is able to clarify what is actually going on and why -- something which escapes most of us.  See Welch, The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon (BYU Press/Maxwell Institute, 2008).  See review at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V42N03_191.pdf .

 

In both the Bible and Book of Mormon, analysts have found examples of formal ancient Near Eastern covenantal structures.  One fine article on this can be found in Stephen D. Ricks, "Kingship, Coronation, and Covenant in Mosiah 1-6," in J. Welch & S. Ricks, eds., King Benjamin's Speech (Provo: FARMS, 1998), 233-275.

 

In both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are also found numerous instances of temple rites of the kind which Mormons understand embody the formal endowment rites of passage.  Much of this remains unpublished for the Book of Mormon, due to obvious problems with the sacred nature of those rites (See, for example, J. Spencer, An Other Testament, 42-63, with strong Israelite temple motifs; K. Christensen, “The Temple, the Monarchy, and Wisdom,” cited in Lindsay, “Temple Blindness,” online at http://blog.fairmormon.org/2014/05/15/temple-blindness/).  However, the biblical material has been widely published.  On Gen 1 - 3, and other biblical temple texts, see 

 

John Kselman JBL 97:164 n.15; Shea Origins 5:9-38; B. Porten HUCA 38:95; N. Habel Literary Crit., 69-70; S. McEvenue Narrative 49-50,81,114; K. Westerman Genesis Accounts 14ff.; Kempf JTTL 7/4:33-53; Francis Landy, “The Song of Songs in the Garden of Eden,” JBL, 98 (Dec 1979):513-528, re Songs 6:2-11; R. Hendel, “Tangled Plots in Genesis,” in A. Beck, et al., eds., Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman (Eerdmans, 1995), 40, citing for further detail H. C. White, Narration and Discourse in the Book of Genesis (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991), 130-135; cf. R. Hendel, “Getting Back to the Garden of Eden,” Bible Review, 14/6 (Dec 1998):17,47; Medina cites E. Vogelzang and W. J. van Bekkum, “Meaning and Symbolism of Clothing in Ancient Near Eastern Texts,” in H. Vanstiphout, et al., eds., Scripta Signa Vocis (Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1986), 267,273; D. Bokovoy, Athoring the OT, I:42-45, citing Mark Smith, The Priestly Vision of Genesis I, 76-77; Hayim ben Yosef Tawil, Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew (KTAV, 2009), 285-286, discusses the “setting” of the Song of Songs as “the royal couple in their natural environment in the garden.  Consequently, in light of both Akk. epigraphical and iconographical sources, perhaps [ʻereś] in SoS 1:16 might be the etymological and the semantic equivalent of Akk. qirsu” or qersu, meaning “a sacred area; arbor, bower”; G. Lloyd Carr, “Is the Song of Songs a ‘Sacred Marriage’ Drama?” JETS, 2 (June 1979):103-114; cf. S. N. Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite: Aspects of Faith, Myth, and Ritual in Ancient Sumer (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1969), 99; Michael Golder, Isaiah as Liturgy (Ashgate Publ., 2004); E. F. Campbell, Ruth, AB 7 (Doubleday, 1975), 118-119; Clifford, CBQ, 39:574.

As to polygamy, the corrected manuscript readings of Jacob (2:22-30,34, 3:5) make it clear that polygamy can only be practiced at the suffrance of God, not based on our own value judgments, where some had mistakenly thought that it was always prohibited by God.

 

 

This works for scholars who immerse their lives in these studies but the majority of Church members have never heard of nor are likely to hear of John W. Welch (Prof. at BYU Law School) or Stephen D. Ricks or a myriad of other scholars you might name.  For the rest of us we are left to rely on our spiritual experiences.

[Calm]

We need to get away from saying Joseph translated the gold plates, that's deceiving.

No, it is not. What do you call rendering a text in a foreign language into something readable? Edited December 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

OK, I am sure you can make a case that JS didn't translate the plates through the gift and power of God. This is a formal CFR.

I guess I thought translate meant he would have had to use the plates which contained another language and then translate that.  But looked up translate and apparently you can translate in other ways.  My bad.

[Calm]

Gervin:

"Christ does not require me to divide my faith among Him and the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the LDS Church."

False premise. Faith is not divided among different objects of faith anymore than love needs to be divided among different people.

[Gervin]

Gervin:

"Christ does not require me to divide my faith among Him and the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the LDS Church."

False premise. Faith is not divided among different objects of faith anymore than love needs to be divided among different people.

Then, what do I need to do to be saved?

 

The Bible makes a distinction between faith and love.  I do to.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Gervin

[ERayR]

Then, what do I need to do to be saved?

 

Believe in Christ and keep his commandments.

[Gervin]

Believe in Christ and keep his commandments.

 

that's all?

No need to believe in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith?

Edited December 8, 2014 by Gervin

[Calm]

that's all?

No need to believe in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith?

If the Spirit does not witness to you that God's commandments include belief in the Word of God as taught in the BoM or by Joseph Smith, then no...God will not hold you accountable for what he does not tell you. Edited December 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

that's all?

No need to believe in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith?

 

With that comes exaltation.

[Calm]

Then, what do I need to do to be saved?

 

The Bible makes a distinction between faith and love.  I do to.

Faith and love may be different in some ways, that does not prove faith is something that is finite and must be divided among that which one has faith in.

Does your faith in the truthfulness of the Bible increase your faith in the Lord or decrease it?

[pogi]

that's all?

No need to believe in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith?

 

If we are talking about what ultimately needs to be done to be saved, that is one thing.  If we are talking about this life only, then I would submit that you only have to be true to the light and knowledge that you have.  Follow the good in your heart.  You will be led into the paths of salvation whether in this life or the next, be you a Buddhist, Muslim, Protestant, Catholic, atheist, or Mormon, etc.

[Gervin]

With that comes exaltation.

And for that, faith in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon is needed, right?

[Gervin]

Faith and love may be different in some ways, that does not prove faith is something that is finite and must be divided among that which one has faith in.

Does your faith in the truthfulness of the Bible increase your faith in the Lord or decrease it?

I'm not required to have faith in the Bible.  With re to the Bible, we can talk about how I perceive spiritual truths and/or how I embrace it as the testimony about Christ and the Gospel ,but such a conversation would include the working of the Holy Spirit.  I'm not required to pray about the Bible to ascertain or verify that I should have faith in its truthfulness.

[Calm]

I'm not required to have faith in the Bible. With re to the Bible, we can talk about how I perceive spiritual truths and/or how I embrace it as the testimony about Christ and the Gospel ,but such a conversation would include the working of the Holy Spirit. I'm not required to pray about the Bible to ascertain or verify that I should have faith in its truthfulness.

So you have no faith in the Bible as the Word of God (at least parts of it)?

Serious question because you seem to be using two different ways to speak about faith and one has little to do with the other as far as I can see.

LDS have testimonies about Christ due to the workings of the Spirit that comes to them when reading the words of the BoM or the teachings of Joseph Smith. I don't see the difference you are apparently claiming.

I just read a talk on lds.org that states with any testimony of the Book of Mormon will come a testimony of Christ, it is impossible not to have a witness of Christ at the same time. One cannot divide Christ out of the Book of Mormon.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2001/04/to-bear-testimony-of-mine-only-begotten?lang=eng

"This is the promise, that our Eternal Father will give us a manifestation of truth—a personal revelation of eternal consequence.

The Book of Mormon was given to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, manifesting Himself unto all nations.

Do not treat lightly the revelations of God. Do not treat lightly this astonishing promise. I bear a solemn testimony to you that this promise has been fulfilled not only in my life but in the lives of hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people.

You will find that when Moroni’s promise is fulfilled and you are given the knowledge that the Book of Mormon is truly the word of God, there will come with it a witness that Jesus is the Christ, the Redeemer and Savior of the world. I have never known an instance where this did not occur. Moreover, I do not believe a violation of this principle will ever take place. A spiritual witness of the Nephite scripture will always bring the certainty of the Savior’s existence."

Edited December 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

And for that, faith in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon is needed, right?

 

Nope.  Just exercise Nephi's promise and get your own witness.  It requires no faith in Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon.  It does however require fat in your ability to honestly without guile to seek and get a spiritual witness.  You see it is an individual journey that requires you to have faith and trust in Christ.

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't believe there exists a professional analyses of the anthropology of the Book of Mormon not authored by a member of the LDS Church.  I could read a  professional anthropological analyses of the Israelites ca. AD100 and the author could be an atheist but as long as she presented valid and cogent, assumptions, findings and conclusions it could stand on its own merits.

Of course all such scholarly and professional analyses should stand on their own merits.  Prejudice against Mormons should not dissuade one against accepting legitimate data and legitimate argument.  Instead of reading a professional anthropological work (such as Sorenson's Mormon's Codex), you make apriori judgments.

 

I didn't know anything about the Book of Mormon before I read it and determined that it was false.  Even an atheist would not dispute the facts of the cultural provenance of the Bible.

Nor the cultural provenance of Homeric Epic (Iliad and Odyssey), which was transmitted to us in the same way the Bible was.  Indeed, any work of historical fiction can mimic reality, but the real question you ignore is the religious question:  Are the descriptions of holy and marvelous works in these books authentic?  We have no secular evidence that such miraculous events actually happened.

 

At the same time, the Book of Mormon (which came to us by miraculous means) cannot possibly be true -- based upon the way in which it arrived and was translated.  However, when we make a close analysis of the actual text of that book (the way professional document examiners approach authentication), it turns out that the preponderance of secular evidence is that the Book of Mormon is historical and authentic.

 

Isn't history, as presented in the BOM, part of the validation one is required to pray about and receive?

Perhaps, if that is what one desires, but the witness of the Holy Spirit may focus elsewhere.  One is not required to pray for or to receive any specific message, particularly if he takes the approach within Alma 32.  A testimony of Jesus and His Atonement may take many forms.  Many Christians from Protestant denominations as well as within Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism likewise have authentic testimonies by the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

 

Certainly, Billy Graham's crusades did not focus at all on historicity of the Bible.  He preached the fundamentals of Christianity and people came forward in response to the witness of the Holy Spirit.  Later, in Sunday School and in personal reading, Christians begin to learn such matters.  Milk before meat.

CFR

 

You may be too young to have ever watched a Billy Graham crusade.  I have watched many of them over the decades, and always had a tremendous respect for Dr. Graham.  You can see his many sermons on YouTube.  Here is an example:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro_NBYo0XGo .  He deals with the Holy Spirit.  His preaching begins at about 16:00.

 

I think your article is a good faith-promoting piece of writing but would be surprised if it had any standing outside of the LDS faithful.  If I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit so.

I would be surprised also.  I don't expect outside experts to give it any notice at all.  Why would they even bother to read it?  However, I cite my sources therein and provide a reasoned argument having nothing to do with faith and testimony.  It is a purely secular set of arguments designed to be taken as an example of forensic examination of the Book of Mormon.