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

[Scott Lloyd]

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

 

No, it's not.

 

 

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.

 

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 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.  

 

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

Another brilliant argument, Smac.

 

Quoted for emphaisis:

 

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.

If my sig line were not already full at the moment, I might request your permission to quote the part I've bolded above as part of my sig line.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

How can you not grab this lifeline? 

 

Because ... I'm not drowning?

 

 

[juliann]

This was Owen's conclusion:

 

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, an account that bore some connection to the mysterious (and probably later) History of the Rechabites. Sometime after ad 421, a Christian apocryphal book was penned in the deserts of Palestine. I will call it the History of the Lehites. This book told a story (set in the days prior to the fall of Jerusalem in the sixth century bc) of the voyage of a Jew named Lehi, who traveled with his family to a new promised land found on the other side of a great body of water, their settlement in that land, their wars and subsequent history, and the visitation of the resurrected Savior among them. Perhaps due to its antiestablishment ecclesiology, or its small circle of exposure in the Christian world, the History of the Lehites was soon lost to the sands of time. Maybe its influence was eclipsed and replaced by the more widely known History of the Rechabites. However, its valuable contents reappeared through Moroni’s apocalyptic disclosure to Joseph Smith (now with updates and expansions appropriate to the religious and cultural concerns of nineteenth-century America). Moroni’s words to Joseph, indicating that the Book of Mormon contained “an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang” (Joseph Smith—History 1:34), in this view, would still be an accurate summary of the fictional (though ancient) narrative as Joseph received it from the angel, though such a detailed application to the Americas specifically would no doubt have been expressed in more cryptic terms in the original History of the Lehites. The broad outlines of this apocalyptic approach to the Book of Mormon is one that has significant explanatory scope and one that I think should be given more consideration on both sides of the debate over the origins of this fascinating text of scripture.²¹

 

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

I suppose that one could say the same of Richard Mouw, former president of Fuller Theological Seminary, whom the Brethren allowed to speak in the Tabernacle back in November of 2004.  Surely, Mouw, an evangelical Presbyterian minister, has plenty of other venues to speak in.  After all he wrote the Foreword to F. Beckwith, C. Mosser, and P. Owen, The New Mormon Challenge (Zondervan, 2002), which is not a pro-Mormon book.  So how could he be our friend?

 

Moreover, you seem to be critical of the Brethren doing just that sort of bridge-building, not to mention that Mouw is one of Robert Millet's close friends who regularly defends Mormons against vicious calumnies.  Likewise with the late Klaus Baer being given carte blanche one year during BYU Education Week to lecture each day on Egyptology.  Naturally the Book of Abraham came up for discussion.  Should he have been given that venue?  I just don't agree that we always need to be on a war footing against everybody.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

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

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

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.

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

While I can agree with your long rant on this subject, I think that you are overreacting.  Including the piece by Paul Owen in that issue of JBMS does in no way signal a shift in thinking at the Maxwell Institute.  Editor Mark Wright explained why it was included, and he clearly does not share Owen's views.  Do we really need to be so fearful of what Owen says?

[Scott Lloyd]

I suppose that one could say the same of Richard Mouw, former president of Fuller Theological Seminary, whom the Brethren allowed to speak in the Tabernacle back in November of 2004.  Surely, Mouw, an evangelical Presbyterian minister, has plenty of other venues to speak in.  After all he wrote the Foreword to F. Beckwith, C. Mosser, and P. Owen, The New Mormon Challenge (Zondervan, 2002), which is not a pro-Mormon book.  So how could he be our friend?

 

I was at that particular meeting. I remember it as being primarily an Evangelical gathering put on by Evangelicals for Evangelicals.

 

The fact that the Brethren made the Tabernacle available for it should not be taken as any sort of implicit endorsement for what was said and done there.

 

Moreover, you seem to be critical of the Brethren doing just that sort of bridge-building, not to mention that Mouw is one of Robert Millet's close friends who regularly defends Mormons against vicious calumnies.  Likewise with the late Klaus Baer being given carte blanche one year during BYU Education Week to lecture each day on Egyptology.  Naturally the Book of Abraham came up for discussion.  Should he have been given that venue?  I just don't agree that we always need to be on a war footing against everybody.

 

Bridge-building does not necessarily imply agreement.

 

And disagreement -- even candid disagreement -- need not be interpreted as "war footing."

Edited March 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

While I can agree with your long rant on this subject,

It wasn't a rant. I've addressed this issue several times before, so I just cobbled together content from various posts I've written previously and added a few more points.

 

I think that you are overreacting.  Including the piece by Paul Owen in that issue of JBMS does in no way signal a shift in thinking at the Maxwell Institute.

I was not reacting, "over" or otherwise, to the JBMS article, but to MormonNewB's characterization of it as "best apologetic argument that I've ever heard for the historicity problems in the BoM."

 

Editor Mark Wright explained why it was included, and he clearly does not share Owen's views.  Do we really need to be so fearful of what Owen says?

I am not fearful of Mr. Owen. I've said nothing about him. I have instead critiqued an idea, a theory which I find highly problematic. And I did not critique it by resorting to alarmism or fearmongering, but by substantive analysis.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 26, 2015 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

While I can agree with your long rant on this subject, I think that you are overreacting.  Including the piece by Paul Owen in that issue of JBMS does in no way signal a shift in thinking at the Maxwell Institute.  Editor Mark Wright explained why it was included, and he clearly does not share Owen's views.  Do we really need to be so fearful of what Owen says?

If you agree with it, why the use of the snarl words "long rant"?

 

And I don't read Smac as being fearful, even though he said what clearly needed saying, not so much with respect to the Maxwell Institute but rather in response to newby's ridiculous characterization of Owen's ruminations as "a lifeline" and the best apolgetic he had ever heard.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[teddyaware]

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.

 

If you haven't done so already. will you please go back and give my entertaining post a rep point? Glad I could add some joy to your day.

[Kenngo1969]

I suppose that one could say the same of Richard Mouw, former president of Fuller Theological Seminary, whom the Brethren allowed to speak in the Tabernacle back in November of 2004.  Surely, Mouw, an evangelical Presbyterian minister, has plenty of other venues to speak in.  After all he wrote the Foreword to F. Beckwith, C. Mosser, and P. Owen, The New Mormon Challenge (Zondervan, 2002), which is not a pro-Mormon book.  So how could he be our friend?

 

Moreover, you seem to be critical of the Brethren doing just that sort of bridge-building, not to mention that Mouw is one of Robert Millet's close friends who regularly defends Mormons against vicious calumnies.  Likewise with the late Klaus Baer being given carte blanche one year during BYU Education Week to lecture each day on Egyptology.  Naturally the Book of Abraham came up for discussion.  Should he have been given that venue?  I just don't agree that we always need to be on a war footing against everybody.

Does one have to harbor any particular enmity or animosity toward Owen in order to harbor misgivings about the Maxwell Institute giving him a forum for his views?  I think not.  I certainly don't harbor any such feelings toward him, as much as I do harbor misgivings about the Maxwell Institute's current direction.

 

You're doing an incredible amount of reading between the lines to conclude that my feelings as expressed in the foregoing paragraph mean that I don't support the Brethren.  And I don't consider the Brethren's invitation to Mouw to speak in the Tabernacle to be analogous to Owen being published in a Maxwell Institute publication.  I'm sure they were very much involved in the former decision; I'm not at all sure that they had a hand in the latter.  If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm open to being persuaded.

 

P.S.: I don't oppose interfaith outreach.  (I would refer you to a post on my blog, a link to which I have posted many times here, but, alas, you've already made it plain what you think of my blog, so I won't bother.) And, what Scott said in #31, above.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Robert F. Smith]

I was at that particular meeting. I remember it as being primarily an Evangelical gathering put on by Evangelicals for Evangelicals.

 

The fact that the Brethren made the Tabernacle available for it should not be taken as any sort of implicit endorsement for what was said and done there.

Which is what I thought of the matter.  However, some on this board apparently think that such indicates endorsement.

 

Bridge-building does not necessarily imply agreement.

 

And disagreement -- even candid disagreement -- need not be interpreted as "war footing."

I agree, which is why I don't understand why some on this board want to constantly be on a war footing.  We should be able to have reasonable interfaith relations without feeling that it breeds apostasy.  Certainly the Brethren don't feel that way.

 

The frank discussion by Robinson & Blomberg in their How Wide the Divide was a breath of fresh air.  We should be able to disagree candidly without losing our cool.  I just don't understand the paranoia bordering on De Torquemada . . .

Edited March 26, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Kenngo1969]

Which is what I thought of the matter.  However, some on this board apparently think that such indicates endorsement.

 

I agree, which is why I don't understand why some on this board want to constantly be on a war footing.  We should be able to have reasonable interfaith relations without feeling that it breeds apostasy.  Certainly the Brethren don't feel that way.

 

The frank discussion by Robinson & Blomberg in their How Wide the Divide was a breath of fresh air.  We should be able to disagree candidly without losing our cool.  I just don't understand the paranoia bordering on De Torquemada . . .

You seem incapable of understanding what I write.  It causes me to doubt that attempting to correspond with you is worth the time and the effort.

[Robert F. Smith]

If you agree with it, why the use of the snarl words "long rant"?

I guess you understand the word "rant" differently than I do.  A long rant can be appropriate on occasion.  This just wasn't one of them.

 

And I don't read Smac as being fearful, even though he said what clearly needed saying, not so much with respect to the Maxwell Institute but rather in response to newby's ridiculous characterization of Owen's ruminations as "a lifeline" and the best apolgetic he had ever heard.

He should have restrained his comments to Newby's overblown notion, bearing in mind of course that Newby was speaking strictly for himself.  Smac is usually more focused and on point.

[Robert F. Smith]

You seem incapable of understanding what I write.  It causes me to doubt that attempting to correspond with you is worth the time and the effort.

Sorry, Kenngo, but I was responding to Scott.

[UtahTexan]

I guess you understand the word "rant" differently than I do.  A long rant can be appropriate on occasion.  This just wasn't one of them.

 

He should have restrained his comments to Newby's overblown notion, bearing in mind of course that Newby was speaking strictly for himself.  Smac is usually more focused and on point.

 

Thought it was.  I thought it was brilliant.

 

He shot down every point made by anyone else.

[Kenngo1969]

Sorry, Kenngo, but I was responding to Scott.

OK.  I thought perhaps I was included among "those on this thread."   I'll reiterate that I don't believe that having misgivings about BYU giving Owen a forum  means that those with such questions don't support the Brethren or that they favor being "on a war footing" with those with whom they disagree.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[sethpayne]

This was Owen's conclusion:

 

Faint echoes of Blake Ostler's "expansion" views (although I understand he may not hold those views today).

Edited March 27, 2015 by sethpayne

[smac97]

I guess you understand the word "rant" differently than I do.  A long rant can be appropriate on occasion.  This just wasn't one of them.

Reasonable minds can disagree about that, I suppose.

He should have restrained his comments to Newby's overblown notion, bearing in mind of course that Newby was speaking strictly for himself.  Smac is usually more focused and on point.

"Should have?" By whose reckoning?

Thanks,

-Smac

[mormonnewb]

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:

First of all, I can't believe that you are two-timing us on another board. Second, while you might not be drowning, many of our young people are.

Unlike you and I, they have grown up in the Internet age, where just about every question can be answered with a few keystrokes. And the Internet is not terribly fond of the BOM (at least, as a historical artifact).

And it's not just the ex-mos and EVs who view the BOM as a longer (and less interesting) version of The Hobbit. Therefore, unless their parents restrict their Internet access to lds.com and davidarchuletta.com, they are going to come across some faith-demoting information.

And while many of you have been able to create a well-informed belief in the historicity of the BOM, there are many others who will come to the opposite conclusion. Of course, some of you will say, "That's right! The Lord is separating the wheat from the chaff!"

And maybe so. However, we should be clear that this is PRECISELY what our fundamentalist Mormon cousins have been claiming for about the last century. And I'm simply not sure that the best way to measure truth is by how many people think that you're nuts.

And while I wouldn't expect the leaders to ever disavow the historicity of the BOM, they might want to leave room for "real" Mormons to be agnostic about some portions of it. And there is nothing unusual about that in Christianity. I recently found a slew of articles from faithful Christians who have concluded that David very likely did NOT slay Goliath.

It didn't make them heretics who had to be banished from their churches to protect the rest of the flock. The evidence simply led them to a different conclusion. Is there room for that in Mormonism?

[Kenngo1969]

There's no age restriction on the formula for discerning the Book of Mormon's truthfulness and for gaining a testimony of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling.  Whatever else may have changed since I served as a full-time missionary, the fact that the gospel net catches the honest in heart of either gender and of every age, race ( sorry; I know how much you hate it when I bring that up), and station in life remains constant.  Perhaps the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a bit "behind the curve" when it comes to availing the Church of the positive side of technology's double-edged sword, but that gap is rapidly closing.

 

P.S.: As for two-timing on another board, I confess: I'm not a smooth enough operator to cover my tracks to avoid suspicion.  I use this screen name there, too.

 

P.P.S.: On a personal level, I have no problem with anyone who questions the Book of Mormon's historicity, but, as I pointed out in the post that I made on "another" board, I think such a stance concedes entirely too much and (in my view) robs the Book of Mormon of much of its power.  I can identify best with a Nephi, a Moroni, and others because I believe they were real.

 

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/joseph-moroni-me/

 

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/encouragement-from-those-in-the-scriptures/

 

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/alma-32-book-of-mormon-historicity/

Edited March 27, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[mormonnewb]

There's no age restriction on the formula for discerning the Book of Mormon's truthfulness and for gaining a testimony of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling. Whatever else may have changed since I served as a full-time missionary, the fact that the gospel net catches the honest in heart of either gender and of every age, race ( sorry; I know how much you hate it when I bring that up), and station in life remains constant. Perhaps the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a bit "behind the curve" when it comes to availing the Church of the positive side of technology's double-edged sword, but that gap is rapidly closing.

P.S.: As for two-timing on another board, I confess: I'm not a smooth enough operator to cover my tracks to avoid suspicion. I use this screen name there, too.

P.P.S.: On a personal level, I have no problem with anyone who questions the Book of Mormon's historicity, but, as I pointed out in the post that I made on "another" board, I think such a stance concedes entirely too much and (in my view) robs the Book of Mormon of much of its power. I can identify best with a Nephi, a Moroni, and others because I believe they were real.

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/joseph-moroni-me/

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/encouragement-from-those-in-the-scriptures/

Okay, so we largely agree. I think the Church'a default position should be that the BOM is historical (at least, for the next few decades). But I don't think it's helpful to constantly push that "either the BOM is what it claims to be or the entire church is a fraud" line. I think that forces people into a false choice and makes us too "brittle" as Mormons.

I think if we just stuck to JS' original promise -- that the BOM would lead us closest to Christ (or something like that) -- I wouldn't meet quite so many ex-mos.

Edited March 27, 2015 by mormonnewb

[smac97]

First of all, I can't believe that you are two-timing us on another board. Second, while you might not be drowning, many of our young people are.

First, I question whether "many of our young people" are "drowning" due to the Church's claims of historicity for The Book of Mormon. I think much more significant factors include A) laxity in daily/weekly observances of the faith (scripture reading, prayer, church/temple attendance, etc.), B) adhering to the Law of Chastity in an increasingly sexualized and permissive social milieu, C) adhering to the Word of Wisdom, D) insufficient attention to charitable service to others, and E) the spiritual malaise that naturally follows A through D.

Second, to the extent the historicity of The Book of Mormon presents an intellectual difficulty for the faith of some of our youth, I do not think we do them any favors by telling them to ditch historicity in favor of some Mormon version of easy believism. Hence my comment that advocates of the "inspired fiction" theory "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."

 

Unlike you and I, they have grown up in the Internet age, where just about every question can be answered with a few keystrokes.

They can no doubt get some information about The Book of Mormon "with a few keystrokes." But the quality of that information can be very suspect. All the more reason for Latter-day Saints to speak out against inherently flawed, faith-derailing online stuff like "It doesn't matter if Jesus Christ ever existed as a historical person," or "It doesn't matter if The Book of Mormon is a historical text."

 

And the Internet is not terribly fond of the BOM (at least, as a historical artifact).

There are also certain portions of the Internet that are "not terribly fond of" black people. Yet I suspect you are not willing to surrender the field and let such bigoted persons spout their notions of racial superiority to youth via the Internet. And that is as it should be. We need to fight against incorrect and damaging ideas by countering them with ... truth. The same principle applies when we encounter online voices to dispute the divinity of Jesus Christ (or the historicity of The Book of Mormon). So we do the youth of the Church no favors by capitulating on the historicity of Jesus Christ, even if there are certain portions of the Internet that are not fond of Him. Likewise, we do the youth of the Church no favors by capitulating on the historicity of The Book of Mormon, even if there are certain portions of the Internet that are not fond of it.

 

And it's not just the ex-mos and EVs who view the BOM as a longer (and less interesting) version of The Hobbit. Therefore, unless their parents restrict their Internet access to lds.com and davidarchuletta.com, they are going to come across some faith-demoting information.

I agree. But the problem here is that the "inspired fiction" theory for The Book of Mormon fits into the category of "faith-demoting information."

I am sure young black men and women encounter theories about racial superiority/inferiority all the time on the Internet. And yet nobody would seriously suggest that we encourage these youth to buy into such damaging online rhetoric. To the contrary, such harmful and incorrect notions need to be countered.

 

And while many of you have been able to create a well-informed belief in the historicity of the BOM, there are many others who will come to the opposite conclusion.

That is, sadly, true. But it doesn't follow that those in the former category should capitulate to those in the latter category. I rather puzzled why you seem to be suggesting otherwise.

 

Of course, some of you will say, "That's right! The Lord is separating the wheat from the chaff!"

Sigh. Your low opinion of your fellow Saints is noted. Again.

 

And while I wouldn't expect the leaders to ever disavow the historicity of the BOM, they might want to leave room for "real" Mormons to be agnostic about some portions of it.

Recent remarks by Pres. Uchtdorf and other general authorities seem to be doing just that. I've been trying to do it, too. Hence my comments: "As deeply flawed as that position is, I welcome such persons who buy into the 'inspired fiction' meme in fellowship in the Church" and "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."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 27, 2015 by smac97

[The Nehor]

Okay, so we largely agree. I think the Church'a default position should be that the BOM is historical (at least, for the next few decades). But I don't think it's helpful to constantly push that "either the BOM is what it claims to be or the entire church is a fraud" line. I think that forces people into a false choice and makes us too "brittle" as Mormons.

I think if we just stuck to JS' original promise -- that the BOM would lead us closest to Christ (or something like that) -- I wouldn't meet quite so many ex-mos.

I notice that this is a strategy and not a search for truth. We should claim it is historical for a few decades and then quietly drop support?

I would argue it is not a false choice. If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be then the whole thing falls apart unless you assume such a strong degree of prophetic and angelic fallibility that you cannot trust either on anything.

[Coreyb]

If the BYU is going to be a big boy (and girl) university then they have to have grown up discussions, and that means opposing views.

[Kenngo1969]

If the BYU is going to be a big boy (and girl) university then they have to have grown up discussions, and that means opposing views.

There's no shortage of opposing views or grown-up discussions on BYU's campus.  If anything certain orthodoxies and worldviews are so prevalent many on other campuses (you know, the "Big Boy and Big Girl" Campuses you so laud) that there's little tolerance (among the allegedly-"open-minded") for anything that runs contrary to those orthodoxies and worldviews.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Kenngo1969