Maxwell Institute: Book Of Mormon Could Be "modern" And "fictional" (?)

[cinepro]

In a recent blog post, John Gee "reviews" an article recently published by the Maxwell Institute at BYU.

 

The blog post is here:

 

On the Latest Anti-Mormon Attack on the Book of Mormon I

 

The original article is here, but behind a paywall:

 

Theological Apostacy and the Role of Canonical Scripture

 

Can anyone read the original article and confirm that it says what Gee says it says?  Because if such an article was really published by the Maxwell Institute, I would have to say I'm really surprised.  Here are some of the excerpted quotes:

 

What I am suggesting, in essence, is that the Book of Mormon could be taken as a genuinely restored ancient text with a fictional narrative that originated in the Old World

(Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 99)

Joseph Smith (or someone in his circle) could have read 2 Esdras in the King James Version of the Apocrypha and perhaps had access to commentary on its meaning through libraries and cultural knowledge.

(Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 94.)

Consequently, Owen maintains

that the gold plates that were shown to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni [were] not necessarily historical artifacts from the history of the America

(Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 97.)

[it] would allow the Book of Mormon to be taken as simultaneously modern and fictional, on the one hand, and miraculous and inclusive of authentic ancient material on the other. It would thus bring the manner of the production of the Book of Mormon more in line with the restoration of other ancient texts (e.g., the Book of Abraham, the Book of Moses, Doctrine and Covenants 7).

(Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 98.)

[rodheadlee]

15 I know thy ^aworks, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

  16 So then because thou art ^alukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will ^bspue thee out of my mouth.

[Kenngo1969]

Why are your surprised?  This is the new, "improved" Maxwell Institute, after all.  (They really need to change the name; I don't think it does honor to Elder Maxwell any longer. )

Edited March 26, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[The Nehor]

Thank you for confirming my decision to not continue funding them once the coup took place.

[The Nehor]

So the angel Moroni was just the author and the two characters named Moroni were just author-insertion.

Kind of sad that the angel did not explain it to Joseph and we are left waiting for the inaptly Maxwell Institute to figure this out, I wonder if Elder Maxwell even now asking for permission to call down fire from heaven and consume the apostates. I am tempted to add my prayer to his if that is the case.

[strappinglad]

Gnats and camels !

[Hamilton Porter]

Calm down people. Calm down Gee. Paul Owen is not Mormon. He's published in FARMS back in 1998.

FARMS has always allowed nice guys to publish opposing viewpoints.

If it's the right Paul Owen, he is an evangelical turned Anglican.

[rodheadlee]

A

Edited March 26, 2015 by rodheadlee

[Hamilton Porter]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=VnwTVYqvHIiXgwS_qYP4BQ&url=http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/11/2/S00002-51b759d872ef52Owen.pdf&ved=0CCAQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNGDTtSjZ7sJEveGIUPoqTlpaRLEHQ&sig2=tVR2H8BN8m41GEXMcXkNHw

[Hamilton Porter]

And I think it's awesome a non-LDS scholar recognizes there may be something supernatural with the BOM!

[Kenngo1969]

I'm well aware of who Mr. Owen is.  I'm well aware that he is not, by far, the worst critic extant of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I'm aware of some of his prior publishing history.  That doesn't mean that I must be happy that he has been granted a forum in a publication of the flagship university of the Church of Jesus Christ, or that I must be happy about what he writes therein.  I must say that, while I don't support purported tithe payers who wish to have a say in how the Lord spends His money, that shoe is, to however small a degree, now on the other foot: I can certainly see why a tithe payer might wonder whether BYU giving Mr. Owen a forum is the wisest use of sacred funds.

[Kenngo1969]

And I think it's awesome a non-LDS scholar recognizes there may be something supernatural with the BOM!

Excuse us if we don't dissolve into paroxysms of ecstasy.  Mr. Owen's ... Ahem! ... "praise" ... is rather faint.

[Sevenbak]

In a recent blog post, John Gee "reviews" an article recently published by the Maxwell Institute at BYU.

The blog post is here:

On the Latest Anti-Mormon Attack on the Book of Mormon I

The original article is here, but behind a paywall:

Theological Apostacy and the Role of Canonical Scripture

Can anyone read the original article and confirm that it says what Gee says it says? Because if such an article was really published by the Maxwell Institute, I would have to say I'm really surprised. Here are some of the excerpted quotes:

Well it seems like there's lots of people here that don't believe in horses, steel swords, wheat, etc. etc., that is mentioned in the book of Mormon. Just playing devils advocate here, but at what point does subjective belief become frowned upon. How much disbelief is okay as long as you don't take it to the next level? And what is that level? I think to some degree we all justify things away or rationalize beliefs to fit into a perceived paradigm or understanding.

Where exactly is that line in the sand that makes one a believer or not? At what level is it okay to believe or not believe?

Just another interpretation by another scholar, there can't help but be many more to follow...

Things that make you go hmmmmmmm...

[The Nehor]

Calm down people. Calm down Gee. Paul Owen is not Mormon. He's published in FARMS back in 1998.

FARMS has always allowed nice guys to publish opposing viewpoints.

If it's the right Paul Owen, he is an evangelical turned Anglican.

Oh, then boring!

[readstoomuch]

Paul Owen tries to be charitable to the LDS within the confines of his theological bias. I also think he is trying to give tools to nonlds who are willng to consider the Book of Mormon. I like his writings for the most part.

[mormonnewb]

How can you not grab this lifeline?  This is the best apologetic argument that I've ever heard for the historicity problems in the BoM. In fact, it's so good that I'm going to give reading the BoM another shot.  And I'm 100% serious (well, not about trying to read the entire BoM again, but about the other part).

 

Is the Book of Job any less scripture, although it appears largely allegorical?  And, to my knowledge, there is no disclaimer at the beginning of Job that states that it is a work of fiction.  I suspect that, at some point, early readers of this work thought that it was a real story that actually happened.  When later scholars began to question that narrative, they didn't throw it out as a "fraud."  It still has valuable lessons to teach us.  Why couldn't that be the case here?

 

In fact, I would see this as likely, given the non-historical nature of some of the events in the OT and NT.  In fact, the Savior taught almost entirely through fictional stories.  Yet, He didn't start them with a disclaimer ("Now, you know none of this really happened, right?").  Instead, He launched into the story without any explanation whatsoever.  Given how often He was misunderstood, I'm almost certain that some of those people walked away thinking that there was actually a Prodigal Son, Good Samaritan, etc.

 

Isn't it at least possible that this is what happened to JS with the BoM?  Would he be any less inspired and a prophet if he translated an ancient Book of Job?  Or, say, an ancient Book of Samuel, where there is a mix of historical and non-historical information?  It would seem to answer many of the questions about horses, steel, etc., while still leaving open the possibility of the historicity of the rest of the narrative.

 

As I see it, Paul Owen should be made an "honorary Mormon" (right along with C.S. Lewis).

[Kenngo1969]

How can you not grab this lifeline?  ... [i opted to view this post, but don't expect me to see or to view any of your replies unless someone else quotes them.]

 

Because ... I'm not drowning?

 

To each, his or her own.  If one finds value in the Book of Mormon but believes it to not be historical, more power to him or her.  That said, the only things more preposterous to me than the original story of the Book of Mormon's coming forth are the attempts to remove that event from the realm of the supernatural.  As I said on another board:

 

I don’t think the question of Book of Mormon historicity can be considered apart from the history of the Restoration. Book of Mormon historicity is one thing; Book of Mormon historicity, in light of the fact that figures in the Restoration claimed to have interactions with actual objects that purport to be a part of the narrative (plates, but also other objects), is another thing; and Book of Mormon historicity in light of the fact that figures in the Restoration claimed to have interactions with actual beings purporting to have lived during Book of Mormon times in Book of Mormon locales is still another.

 

The Book of Mormon is entirely too obsessed with its own purported source material to be a good fraud. If Joseph Smith is a fraudster, he violated the first rule of fraud—repeatedly: “Keep it simple, stupid.” If one is going to perpetrate a fraud, he should have a convincing back story. First mistake? Angels/heavenly beings! Second mistake? Plates (and not only plates, but plates that refer to [several sets of] other plates)!

 

The only thing less convincing than the Book of Mormon’s actual narrative (and the narrative of its coming forth) are the various narratives that attempt to account for all of the evidence while explaining away its supernatural origins. It’s as though God said, “Let’s see, what am I going to need to restore my church? The Bible won’t do it. That’s just been confusing everybody for hundreds of years. I need a new (purportedly) sacred text. Should it be on parchment? Stone tablets? Nah! It’s been done. Hey, I think I’ve got it: Plates!” And it’s as though he then said, “If I’ve gonna have plates, I’ve got to have a hologram of an Angel Moroni …” And away He went from there.

 

[teddyaware]

How can you not grab this lifeline?  This is the best apologetic argument that I've ever heard for the historicity problems in the BoM. In fact, it's so good that I'm going to give reading the BoM another shot.  And I'm 100% serious (well, not about trying to read the entire BoM again, but about the other part).

 

Is the Book of Job any less scripture, although it appears largely allegorical?  And, to my knowledge, there is no disclaimer at the beginning of Job that states that it is a work of fiction.  I suspect that, at some point, early readers of this work thought that it was a real story that actually happened.  When later scholars began to question that narrative, they didn't throw it out as a "fraud."  It still has valuable lessons to teach us.  Why couldn't that be the case here?

 

In fact, I would see this as likely, given the non-historical nature of some of the events in the OT and NT.  In fact, the Savior taught almost entirely through fictional stories.  Yet, He didn't start them with a disclaimer ("Now, you know none of this really happened, right?").  Instead, He launched into the story without any explanation whatsoever.  Given how often He was misunderstood, I'm almost certain that some of those people walked away thinking that there was actually a Prodigal Son, Good Samaritan, etc.

 

Isn't it at least possible that this is what happened to JS with the BoM?  Would he be any less inspired and a prophet if he translated an ancient Book of Job?  Or, say, an ancient Book of Samuel, where there is a mix of historical and non-historical information?  It would seem to answer many of the questions about horses, steel, etc., while still leaving open the possibility of the historicity of the rest of the narrative.

 

As I see it, Paul Owen should be made an "honorary Mormon" (right along with C.S. Lewis).n

 

This sounds exactly how one would expect the devil to act in his mission to carefully lead the souls of men down to hell: If he can't get the Latter-day Saints to repudiate and reject the Book of Mormon all at once, the devil will first tempt the weak in faith to feel some discomfort and embarrassment over the fact that the Book of Mormon's historicity and truthfulness cannot be confirmed by earthly means (because by divine design there is no other way to verify its historicity and authenticity other than to receive confirmatory revelation from heaven) and then employ a clever scheme to further persuade these same weak members to adopt the untenable position that the Book of Mormon is somehow both true and untrue at the same time! 

 

As strange as it seems, the adoption of this "hybrid" position of the Book of Mormon being both true and untrue will unavoidably lead these people to believe and disbelieve in the Book of Mormon at the same time; and this, in turn, will effectively set the stage for the inevitable day when the Book of Mormon will be rejected outright. Then, spiritually speaking, more souls will bite the dust as they exit the Church. The adoption of this bizarre position on the Book of Mormon can be likened to the proverbial camel who first pokes his nose into a tent without any apparent harm, only to be followed by the camel recklessly plowing forward with the tent being uprooted, torn to the ground and trampled upon.

 

Rather than grabbing mormonnewby's false and faithless "lifeline" of simultaneous belief and unbelief in the Book of Mormon, I strongly recommend that the faithful saints lay a firm grip on the iron rod of word of God, for it will safely guide us through the treacherous waters that lie ahead. 

 

 

10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words andbelieve in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.

 11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness. (2 Nephi 33)

Edited March 26, 2015 by teddyaware

[Robert F. Smith]

Calm down people. Calm down Gee. Paul Owen is not Mormon. He's published in FARMS back in 1998.

FARMS has always allowed nice guys to publish opposing viewpoints.

If it's the right Paul Owen, he is an evangelical turned Anglican.

Paul Owen and his colleague Carl Mosser have had some very nice things to say about LDS scholarship.  Particularly LDS apologetics.  In any case, Mark Wright, speaking for the editors of JBMS, explains: 

 

“Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture: A Thematic Analysis of 1 Nephi 13-14″ is the work of Paul Owen. His detailed exegesis of the apocalyptic portions of Nephi’s vision serve to highlight the tension between Mormonism and the wider Christian tradition.

 

Indeed, Owen's views are equally applicable to biblical literature, in that, as we know, much of biblical primeval history also appears in much earlier works in Mesopotamia (creation, flood, etc.).  One could rightly ask whether the appearance of such mythic and epic materials in the Bible is meant to be taken literally?  Or are they merely part of a standard, poetic and symbolic liturgy?  What can a form critical analysis tell us about such texts?

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm well aware of who Mr. Owen is.  I'm well aware that he is not, by far, the worst critic extant of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I'm aware of some of his prior publishing history.  That doesn't mean that I must be happy that he has been granted a forum in a publication of the flagship university of the Church of Jesus Christ, or that I must be happy about what he writes therein.  I must say that, while I don't support purported tithe payers who wish to have a say in how the Lord spends His money, that shoe is, to however small a degree, now on the other foot: I can certainly see why a tithe payer might wonder whether BYU giving Mr. Owen a forum is the wisest use of sacred funds.

It all depends on whether one has enough faith in the strength of his position to withstand an occasional buffeting from outside. Brother Brigham allowed anti-Mormons to speak in the Tabernacle without fear that his flock might be converted.  Of course, he had the very able Orson Pratt there to deliver a defense (Orson won the debate hands down).

 

Faithful Mormon scholars at FARMS hosted Owen & Mosser years ago when, as theology grad-students, they sought to examine in-depth the validity of Mormon apologetics.  They came away deeply impressed:  See their remarkable “Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" Trinity Journal, 19/2 new series (Fall 1998):179-205.  First delivered on April 25, 1997, at the Evangelical Society Far West Annual Meeting.  Available online at  http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html .

 

We need to be good neighbors to such sincere and serious scholars.  They are our friends, and they don't need to convert to prove it.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Antoni]

Thank you for that link (http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html) Robert, it's brilliant and extremely helpful.

 

Light, Love and Peace

 

Antoni

[Kenngo1969]

It all depends on whether one has enough faith in the strength of his position to withstand an occasional buffeting from outside. Brother Brigham allowed anti-Mormons to speak in the Tabernacle without fear that his flock might be converted.  Of course, he had the very able Orson Pratt there to deliver a defense (Orson won the debate hands down).

 

Faithful Mormon scholars at FARMS hosted Owen & Mosser years ago when, as theology grad-students, they sought to examine in-depth the validity of Mormon apologetics.  They came away deeply impressed:  See their remarkable “Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" Trinity Journal, 19/2 new series (Fall 1998):179-205.  First delivered on April 25, 1997, at the Evangelical Society Far West Annual Meeting.  Available online at  http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html .

 

We need to be good neighbors to such sincere and serious scholars.  They are our friends, and they don't need to convert to prove it.

What part of, "I'm well aware of some of [Mr. Owen's] prior publishing history" do you not understand, Sir?  As much as I support "being good neighbors to such sincere and serious scholars" (e.g., while Pastor Johnson may not be a scholar, I support the bridge building efforts of Robert Millet and Pastor Greg Johnson between Mormonism and other Christian faiths), such efforts need not necessarily include providing them a forum in one of the publications of the flagship university of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I'm sure Mr. Owen does not struggle in the least to find fora for his work.  He's perfectly welcome to publish it in such fora.  We should reserve ours for responding.

[CV75]

Where exactly is that line in the sand that makes one a believer or not? At what level is it okay to believe or not believe?

I think this goes along with 1 Corinthians 8.

 

Knowledge can both puff up and increase faith. Charity always edifies. So I think the line is not so much "what" but "how" the scholar honors and expresses his knowledge and faith to charitable edify others, and how much charity one can display toward the scholar in any perceived missteps. I think charity is appropriate for anyone to apply in his profession / vocation or any other endeavor that applies his knowledge.

 

Some articles prepared in "this liberty" may well "become a stumblingblock to them that are weak." And so the counsel to "take heed" for those who have ears to hear.  But any reader who is inclined to become "emboldened" to disbelieve the Book of Mormon because of this scholarly treatment may well need (paraphrasing President Hinckley) more friends, more responsibility, and more "nurturing with “the good word of God,” and that is the role of the faithful. I'm sure the Spirit strives with both scholars and readers to do just that.

[Senator]

This sounds exactly how one would expect the devil to act in his mission to carefully lead the souls of men down to hell: If he can't get the Latter-day Saints to repudiate and reject the Book of Mormon all at once, the devil will first tempt the weak in faith to feel some discomfort and embarrassment over the fact that the Book of Mormon's historicity and truthfulness cannot be confirmed by earthly means (because by divine design there is no other way to verify its historicity and authenticity other than to receive confirmatory revelation from heaven) and then employ a clever scheme to further persuade these same weak members to adopt the untenable position that the Book of Mormon is somehow both true and untrue at the same time! 

 

As strange as it seems, the adoption of this "hybrid" position of the Book of Mormon being both true and untrue will unavoidably lead these people to believe and disbelieve in the Book of Mormon at the same time; and this, in turn, will effectively set the stage for the inevitable day when the Book of Mormon will be rejected outright. Then, spiritually speaking, more souls will bite the dust as they exit the Church. The adoption of this bizarre position on the Book of Mormon can be likened to the proverbial camel who first pokes his nose into a tent without any apparent harm, only to be followed by the camel recklessly plowing forward with the tent being uprooted, torn to the ground and trampled upon.

 

Rather than grabbing mormonnewby's false and faithless "lifeline" of simultaneous belief and unbelief in the Book of Mormon, I strongly recommend that the faithful saints lay a firm grip on the iron rod of word of God, for it will safely guide us through the treacherous waters that lie ahead. 

 

 

10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words andbelieve in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.

 11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness. (2 Nephi 33)

 

Rally the cherubims and flaming sword!!!

 

,,,,,,,,,,,,all off of a couple context free quotes...

 

 

That's why I love this place!!!

 

It is SO entertaining.

[smac97]

How can you not grab this lifeline?

It's not a lifeline. It's a patently flawed line of reasoning.

 

This is the best apologetic argument that I've ever heard for the historicity problems in the BoM.

No, it's not.

 

In fact, it's so good that I'm going to give reading the BoM another shot.  And I'm 100% serious (well, not about trying to read the entire BoM again, but about the other part).

 

Okay.  As I have said previously, as deeply flawed as that position is, I welcome such persons who buy into the "inspired fiction" meme in fellowship in the Church.

That said, my view is that rejecting the BoM's historicity necessarily requires rejecting the BoM's status as scripture. I don't think that a coherent good faith argument can be made otherwise. Consider the following (emphases added):

Elder Oaks: "There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors' declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship. ... The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived." (Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, p. 244.)

In his article "Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon," Kent P. Jackson asks, "what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?" He goes on: "Can the Book of Mormon indeed be 'true,' in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events?" (pp. 137-38)

 

I agree with these sentiments.

 

Is the Book of Job any less scripture, although it appears largely allegorical?

A few thoughts here:

 

First, I've touched on this topic previously.  See here.  Another good resource is this article by Elder Oaks.

 

Second, fables have value irrespective of their historicity. Christ as the Son of God and Savior of the world, on the other hand, only has value because of his historicity. Historicity matters when we consider some other scriptural passages, such as this one: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Absent historicity, this passage has no salvific meaning or value. Jesus would be just another admirable fictional character, like Atticus Finch, or Samwise Gamgee, or Captain America. Jesus would be about as valuable to me as an imaginary life preserver would be to a drowning man.

Third, the historical provenance of The Book of Job is not, I think, as interwoven with its historicity as compared to The Book of Mormon and its historicity. That is to say, The Book of Mormon is explicitly and repeatedly declared to be historical.

I think the observation above by Elder Oaks is apt: "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived." I concede that the historicity of a particular parable spoken by Christ is immaterial to its spiritual value. However, the historicity of the existence of Christ is a markedly different issue. If Christ never existed, then belief in Him has no salvific power. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" has no meaning or relevance. In fact, it is a lie and a fraud which must be affirmatively rejected if there is no historicity underlying it.

I think the same must be said for The Book of Mormon. The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship." This is why I find advocacy of this approach problematic. Such advocates are steering others up a spiritual blind alley; a path, I think, which sooner or later will culminate in a crisis of faith and/or a rejection of The Book of Mormon. After all, one who rejects its historicity has already rejected a substantive, even vital, part of the book. Rejecting the rest of it would seem to be just a matter of time. That is why I disagree with you that Mr. Owen's scholarship is a viable lifeline. I think an affirmative denial of the book's historicity will, sooner or later, become fatal to a testimony of the book. Ambivalence about historicity is perhaps possible, but affirmative denial is, I think, not compatible with an enduring and efficacious testimony of The Book of Mormon.

Can a person have faith in Christ while simultaneously rejecting Christ as an actual, historical figure? I don't think so. Rejecting the historicity of Christ renders Christ a fictional role model, like Atticus Finch or Gandalf. A fictional Christ has no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save.

Can a person have faith in The Book of Mormon while simultaneously rejecting The Book of Mormon as to its historicity? I don't think so. Such a concept renders Joseph Smith a fraud and a liar, and the book itself a fraud and a lie. A fictional Book of Mormon has no real power, and renders it as nothing more than a quirky self-help book. It becomes no more relevant to the salvation of men than Awaken the Giant Within by Anthony Robbins or How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. These are useful books, to be sure. For some, they are even life changing. But The Book of Mormon has - by its own terms - more ambitious plans. Consider the Title Page from an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view:

> THE BOOK OF MORMON

> AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY

> THE HAND OF MORMON

Proponents of the "inspired fiction" theory, in reading this, are compelled to say something like this: "Just kiddin! There was no such person named Mormon. He never existed. Joseph Smith lied or was deluded when he taught anything to the contrary."

> UPON PLATES TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI

Again, no dice. There was no Lehi, hence no Nephi, hence no Nephites or records of the Nephites. Hence no abridgment of these records. Hence no Gold Plates. Joseph Smith lied about these plates ever existing. Or he fabricated them and then actively deceived eleven eyewitnesses with faux relics.

Oh, and also, the Three Witnesses lied when they testified that "that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon." Either that, or God sent an angel with fake plates to deceive the Witnesses and the millions of people who have read their testimony. Conspiratorial lying and deception on a grand scale is, sadly, the only option for people who reject the historicity of The Book of Mormon.

> Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—

No and no. There were no Nephites or Lamanites. From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, these are lies and deceptions.

> Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel;

More lies. There were no Lamanites.

> and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment,

More lies. From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, Joseph Smith or one of his contemporaries wrote the book. Not Mormon or the Nephite prophets.

> and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—

From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, The Book of Mormon is a fraud and a lie, and hence could not be written "by the spirit of prophecy."

> Written and sealed up,

Another lie. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, hence nothing was sealed up.

> and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—

More lies. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, hence nothing to be hidden or potentially destroyed.

> To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—

More lies. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, ergo nothing to be translated. From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, Joseph Smith or one of his contemporaries wrote the book.

> Sealed by the hand of Moroni,

Another lie. Moroni never existed.

> and hid up unto the Lord,

Another lie. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, hence no records to be "hid up."

> to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

More lies. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, ergo nothing to "come forth" and nothing to be interpreted.

> An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared,

Lies upon lies. There were no Jaredites, ergo no Book of Either, ergo no abridgment of their records.

> who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—

More lies. There were no Jaredites, ergo no such persons were at the Tower of Babel.

> Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—

Lies. There were no Nephites, ergo no portion of the remnant of the House of Israel have the Nephites as their fathers, ergo there is nothing which the Lord did for the non-existent Nephites. Lies, lies, lies.

> And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—

From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, the Jew and the Gentile are to be convinced that Jesus is the Christ by way of a book that purports to an ancient record, but is in fact a lie and a fraud? How "convincing" can a book fraught with lies and deceit be?

> And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, how can there be "faults" in a book which is a monstrous lie? What are its faults? That it's not fraudulent enough?  From the "inspired fiction" point of view, look how many lies The Book of Mormon has piled up for itself.  And that's just those in the title page!

 

The "inspired fiction" meme would also require us to jettison large chunks of Joseph Smith-History in the Pearl of Great Price.  Specifically, verses 29-47, describing Moroni's visit to Joseph Smith, must be a lie.  The "inspired fiction" theory holds that Lehi was fictional and never existed, and that his posterity, including Moroni, never existed.  So what are we to make of verse 33, where the angel identifies himself as Moroni, the person who, under the "inspired fiction" theory, never existed?  

 

What are we to make of verse 34, which speaks of an actual "book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent?"  Under the "inspired fiction" theory, Lehi and his descendants never existed, ergo no records were kept on plates, ergo no account of non-existent "former inhabitants" (Lehites), ergo no "book deposited."

 

What are we to make of verses 48-54, which recount second and third visits from the he-who-never-existed-because-The-Book-of-Mormon-is-a-work-of-fiction Angel Moroni?  Under the "inspired fiction" theory, these must be dismissed as lies or delusions.

 

What are we to make of Joseph Smith's recounting of climbing a hill near the village of Manchester, finding a stone near the top, digging around it, and lifting it up to find gold plates, the Urim and Thummim, and a breastplate?  Under the "inspired fiction" theory, these must be dismissed as lies or delusions.

 

What about verse 54, in which Joseph Smith recounts annual visits to this hill and encounters with the he-who-never-existed-because-The-Book-of-Mormon-is-a-work-of-fiction Angel Moroni?  

 

What about verse 59, in which Joseph Smith gives a specific date (September 21, 1827) on which he traveled to the hill, met the he-who-never-existed-because-The-Book-of-Mormon-is-a-work-of-fiction Angel Moroni, and received the gold plates which, under the "inspired fiction" theory, never existed because there were never any Lehite record-makers to make and preserve them?  Under the "inspired fiction" theory, these must be dismissed as lies or delusions.  

 

And what are we to make of the Testimony of the Three Witnesses and the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses?  How do we reconcile these with the "inspired fiction" theory?  Were the witnesses all lying (which would have involved a fairly extensive conspiracy which never came to light)?  Were they all deceived?  Collectively and temporarily insane, all conveniently at the exact same time?  Were there actual, physical plates as attested to by these men?  If so, did Joseph Smith fabricate them so that he could dupe his buddies?  And how is any of this reconcilable with God Himself testifying that these records - which under the "inspired fiction" theory either never existed or only existed as a prop fabricated by Joseph Smith or a co-conspirator so as to dupe others - "have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his (God's) voice hath declared it unto us?"

 

We could go on for days like this, but I trust my point is made.  Regarding the origins of The Book of Mormon, the one proposed explanation that is harder to accept than Joseph Smith's is the "inspired fiction" meme (which is apparently what Paul Owen is suggesting). At least the other theories have some conceivable basis. I can see how an outsider approaching The Book of Mormon could conclude that there are only three possible explanations for the text: 1) Joseph Smith was deluded/deceived in his claims about the book, 2) Joseph Smith was dishonest/fraudulent in his claims about the book, or 3) Joseph Smith was honest/correct in his claims about the book.

 

However, I simply cannot wrap my head around a fourth theory underlying the "inspired fiction" concept, which is that Joseph Smith was deluded/deceived and dishonest/fraudulent and honest/correct in his claims about the book. That makes no kind of sense whatsoever. Elder Oaks was right: "This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship."

The "inspired fiction" approach to The Book of Mormon requires a rejection of The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be. To accept it on those grounds would be like saying "Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and my Lord and Savior, even though I reject the idea that he ever actually existed." A fictional Christ does not work, and neither does a fictional Book of Mormon.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited March 29, 2015 by smac97