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

[canard78]

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.

- snip -

Recent remarks by Pres. Uchtdorf and other general authorities seem to be doing just that.

- snip -

So people struggle because A) They're lazy B) They're sinful C) They're sinful D) They're lazy which leads to them E) losing the spirit.

To then reference President Uchtdorf in your argument seems the height of irony.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

[mormonnewb]

So people struggle because A) They're lazy B) They're sinful C) They're sinful D) They're lazy which leads to them E) losing the spirit.

To then reference President Uchtdorf in your argument seems the height of irony.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

 

Thank you, my brother!

 

I don't know who created the canard (pun intended) that sin and laziness are reasons why people lose faith, but one need not change their fundamental view of right and wrong to engage in sin or laziness.  In other words, I can still believe that the Gospel is true and choose to sin (or be lazy).

 

To illustrate in a slightly different context, I KNOW that broccoli is better for me than ice cream.  Yet, I usually choose ice cream over broccoli.  To make such a choice, I don't convince myself that "broccoli isn't true."  I simply decide the ice cream tastes better, consequences by damned.

 

I have often made the same decision with regards to sin.  I have told a few (thousand) lies in my day.  I didn't lose my "testimony" in the propriety of telling the truth.  I simply decided that a lie would suit my purposes at the time better than the truth would.

 

So let's get rid of this notion that people are so eager to sin that they distort their sense of reality to achieve that goal.  It simply isn't necessary.  One of the crazy things about this thing we call "agency" is that people can actually CHOOSE to do what they know to be wrong.  So if someone says that they no longer believe in the Church/Gospel/BOM/Joseph Smith/whatever, we should probably give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume that they just want to watch porn / drink hot caffeine / watch The Passion of the Christ (the R-rated version) / etc.  Because they can do all of those things and still believe in the fundamental claims of Mormonism.

[Tacenda]

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."

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Just like some have said the Adam and Eve story is symbolism. I always believed it to be factual. I was late to the party I guess. And it provided a crack to me believing that I can't believe all of the bible, and I darn near refuse to believe God killing women and children. I can see how not believing the BoM to be factual would be a crack, especially when the youth or we have been taught that it is. What about the strickling warriors? Just last year I believe, many young men dressed up like these 2, 000 warriors and walked in a local parade, I'm from Utah. So we're suppose to tell these guys the BoM isn't historical? I'm with you Smac, that's a sure invitation to them losing their testimony.

[Brant Gardner]

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?

The idea that David might not have slain Goliath is very different from saying that there was no David.  If we deal with documents from the distant past, the concepts of what became "history" and our idea of what history should be are very different. I strongly disagree that the LDS church makes it difficult for members who would believe that Mormon invented dialogue or supplied some back stories he couldn't have known any more than they would be concerned about someone who didn't believe that every single event in the Bible occurred just as stated. Personally, I don't read the story of Balaam's *** literally.

 

I have--in print--suggested that Mormon invented dialogue and created explanations for some things he simply couldn't have known. I have not had any repercussions from my suggestions about the nature of history in the Book of Mormon, and was even invited to talk with the Church Curriculum Committee. They have lots of people come talk to them, I was in no way special in the invitation. However, there was also no indication that my historical but not absolute reading of the text was a possibility. Suggesting that we read historical documents critically is quite different from declaring that they have no historicity.

 

For too many who dismiss Book of Mormon historicity, their issues would be similar to accepting that the David and Goliath story was not historical, that the Tower of Babel was not the origin or all language, or that when Luke gets details of Nazareth wrong, that the entire text has no historicity and is therefore only moral stories. It could happen, but it would be a sad misunderstanding of history, historicity, or the place of the Old and New Testaments in both history and doctrine. Similarly for the Book of Mormon, there are stories that might hot have been historical (though the geographical details are significantly better than Luke's description of Nazareth). However, assuming that questions about horses, wheat, or assumed glass windows in Jaredite barges therefore mean that the text has no historicity is no different than assuming that the presence of unicorns and dragons in the KJV preclude the Bible's historicity.

 

I think it is an equally simplistic correlation to suggest that people are being excluded from the church unless they believe in an absolutist historicity for the Book of Mormon. I sincerely doubt that even strong doubts--or disbelief--in the historicity would be a particular issue. I had a good friend in a ward long ago who was in a Bishopric and (I'm not really sure how) received a temple recommend with the stated understanding that he didn't believe the Book of Mormon to be historical or that Joseph Smith was a prophet. What the church polices isn't our thoughts or learning, but our active teaching. If I advocate a position contrary to the church, then the church has a right to take notice. Questioning is significantly different from advocating.

[Senator]

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.

Our university is only interested in what outsiders think in regards to business and law etc. , not religion.

[smac97]

So people struggle because A) They're lazy B) They're sinful C) They're sinful D) They're lazy which leads to them E) losing the spirit.

You are misrepresenting what I said. Here it is again:

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.

I think there are many potential factors that can lead Latter-day Saints to struggle with their faith. I certainly do not dispute the reality of people struggling with some of the Church's doctrine. But I think there are other factors that are generally more prevalent.

And I said nothing about laziness. That can be a certainly be a problem contributing A) and D) above. However, hardworking Latter-day Saints can also become lax in daily/weekly observances and service to others. Likewise, Latter-day Saints can become overly distracted by various pursuits (computer games, sports, TV, etc.).

Nevertheless, I am open to correction on this issue.

To then reference President Uchtdorf in your argument seems the height of irony.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

I'm not sure what your point is. Pres. Uchtdorf said this: "One might ask, If the gospel is so wonderful, why would anyone leave?' Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations." That sounds quite a bit like what I said about there being multiple "factors" potentially in play.

Pres. Uchtdorf also said this: "Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past. We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church history—along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events—there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question."

I acknowledge that concerns about church history and doctrine can be a factor (as I did in my previous post). I was speaking specifically about concerns about the historicity of The Book or Mormon. I simply question how prevalent that concern is amongst the body of the Saints, particularly the youth.

Thanks,

-Smac

[tonie]

Why must one deny the Divinity and validity of Christ, if the do not believe in the historocity of the Book of Mormon is book?

[tonie]

How much of a fuss was raised by John Gee, et a,l when Maxwell Institute published Mr. Owen in 1999?

[tonie]

 I was speaking specifically about concerns about the historicity of The Book or Mormon. I simply question how prevalent that concern is amongst the body of the Saints, particularly the youth.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

I would say it is not prevelant.

 

I would also say that not until a Saint finds "LDS themed" discussion boards, wherein fellow Saints post  "No true Saint does not accept the historicity of the Book Of Mormon" does it become an issue.

[Senator]

The idea that David might not have slain Goliath is very different from saying that there was no David.  If we deal with documents from the distant past, the concepts of what became "history" and our idea of what history should be are very different. I strongly disagree that the LDS church makes it difficult for members who would believe that Mormon invented dialogue or supplied some back stories he couldn't have known any more than they would be concerned about someone who didn't believe that every single event in the Bible occurred just as stated. Personally, I don't read the story of Balaam's *** literally.

 

I have--in print--suggested that Mormon invented dialogue and created explanations for some things he simply couldn't have known. I have not had any repercussions from my suggestions about the nature of history in the Book of Mormon, and was even invited to talk with the Church Curriculum Committee. They have lots of people come talk to them, I was in no way special in the invitation. However, there was also no indication that my historical but not absolute reading of the text was a possibility. Suggesting that we read historical documents critically is quite different from declaring that they have no historicity.

 

For too many who dismiss Book of Mormon historicity, their issues would be similar to accepting that the David and Goliath story was not historical, that the Tower of Babel was not the origin or all language, or that when Luke gets details of Nazareth wrong, that the entire text has no historicity and is therefore only moral stories. It could happen, but it would be a sad misunderstanding of history, historicity, or the place of the Old and New Testaments in both history and doctrine. Similarly for the Book of Mormon, there are stories that might hot have been historical (though the geographical details are significantly better than Luke's description of Nazareth). However, assuming that questions about horses, wheat, or assumed glass windows in Jaredite barges therefore mean that the text has no historicity is no different than assuming that the presence of unicorns and dragons in the KJV preclude the Bible's historicity.

 

I think it is an equally simplistic correlation to suggest that people are being excluded from the church unless they believe in an absolutist historicity for the Book of Mormon. I sincerely doubt that even strong doubts--or disbelief--in the historicity would be a particular issue. I had a good friend in a ward long ago who was in a Bishopric and (I'm not really sure how) received a temple recommend with the stated understanding that he didn't believe the Book of Mormon to be historical or that Joseph Smith was a prophet. What the church polices isn't our thoughts or learning, but our active teaching. If I advocate a position contrary to the church, then the church has a right to take notice. Questioning is significantly different from advocating.

Exellent expression of my very own views, Brant

[smac97]

I don't know who created the canard (pun intended) that sin and laziness are reasons why people lose faith, but one need not change their fundamental view of right and wrong to engage in sin or laziness.  In other words, I can still believe that the Gospel is true and choose to sin (or be lazy).

I quite agree. Speaking of canards, I see you have fabricated one by mischaracterizing my post.

 

So let's get rid of this notion that people are so eager to sin that they distort their sense of reality to achieve that goal.

Why? Sin and laziness are undoubtedly factors affecting Latter-day Saints. Certainly they are not the only factors, and for many they are not even the predominating factors (working too much, worldly distractions, etc. can be just as common).

But to say that these are not factors at all is to ignore reality. It is not incumbent on us to ascribe such things to any particular individual.

 

It simply isn't necessary.  One of the crazy things about this thing we call "agency" is that people can actually CHOOSE to do what they know to be wrong.  So if someone says that they no longer believe in the Church/Gospel/BOM/Joseph Smith/whatever, we should probably give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume that they just want to watch porn / drink hot caffeine / watch The Passion of the Christ (the R-rated version) / etc.  Because they can do all of those things and still believe in the fundamental claims of Mormonism.

I agree with pretty much everything you have said. I do not think we should ascribe false motives to individuals. However, that is different from saying that these things are not factors at all. That no Latter-day Saint ever struggled with their faith due in part to sin, or laziness, or overwork, or worldly distractions, etc. (and again, concerns about church history and doctrine are also potential factors).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 27, 2015 by smac97

[stemelbow]

Count me one who is encouraged by this sort of thing rather than upset.

I think we'll all benefit the more The Book of Mormon has considerations from all angles. Bokovoy has pretty well articulated my view of this in many forums. Recently he sat with Brent Metcalf and both of them explained a view that I am so completely on board with as it pertains to this piece and any others that ever come along like it.

http://www.mormonstudiespodcast.com/003-david-bokovoy-multi-volume-series-on-the-hebrew-bible-historicity-and-the-nature-of-scripture/

Give it a listen, if you like. They say it better than I'll type it here.

[Gray]

Count me one who is encouraged by this sort of thing rather than upset.

I think we'll all benefit the more The Book of Mormon has considerations from all angles. Bokovoy has pretty well articulated my view of this in many forums. Recently he sat with Brent Metcalf and both of them explained a view that I am so completely on board with as it pertains to this piece and any others that ever come along like it.

http://www.mormonstudiespodcast.com/003-david-bokovoy-multi-volume-series-on-the-hebrew-bible-historicity-and-the-nature-of-scripture/

Give it a listen, if you like. They say it better than I'll type it here.

 

Thanks for reminding me of this, I forgot that I was meaning to download and listen

[cinepro]

Count me one who is encouraged by this sort of thing rather than upset.

I think we'll all benefit the more The Book of Mormon has considerations from all angles. Bokovoy has pretty well articulated my view of this in many forums. Recently he sat with Brent Metcalf and both of them explained a view that I am so completely on board with as it pertains to this piece and any others that ever come along like it.

http://www.mormonstudiespodcast.com/003-david-bokovoy-multi-volume-series-on-the-hebrew-bible-historicity-and-the-nature-of-scripture/

Give it a listen, if you like. They say it better than I'll type it here.

 

I don't think that's the kind of endorsement the Maxwell Institute is hoping for...

Edited March 27, 2015 by cinepro

[stemelbow]

I don't think that's the kind of endorsement the Maxwell Institute is hoping for...

What do you mean?

It helps to begin by remembering that what’s happening today is not entirely new. For instance, almost 40 years ago Truman G. Madsen organized a landmark academic conference at Brigham Young University where scholars from different religious and academic backgrounds addressed Judeo-Christian parallels with Mormonism. In the book that grew out of that conference, Madsen explained that “the contributors neither assumed nor intended endorsement of [bYU's] religious rootage nor of each other’s views.” In other words, scholars were invited to participate even if they didn’t share all beliefs—devotional or otherwise—with the conference’s Latter-day Saint sponsors. But differences in perspective, Madsen continued, “in no way diminished the good will of the group.” One participant, Lutheran bishop of Stockholm Krister Stendahl, was so impressed with his experience that he went on to contribute an essay to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism on baptism for the dead. (Stendahl is also known for coining the phrase “holy envy,” an attitude he said faithful believers would benefit from cultivating toward other religious traditions.) Dr. James Charlesworth, a world renowned scholar of the New Testament and Dead Sea Scrolls, contributed a piece to that volume in which he situated some of the messianic claims of the Book of Mormon alongside instances of biblical “pseudepigrapha.”1

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/why-publish-non-lds-scholars/

[Robert F. Smith]

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

And it's not just the ex-mos and EVs who view the BOM as a longer (and less interesting) version of The Hobbit. ..............................................................

 The evidence simply led them to a different conclusion. Is there room for that in Mormonism?

"the BOM as a longer (and less interesting) version of The Hobbit."  Greate phrase, Newby.  Just not sure that there is room in Mormonism for it.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Yes, indeed.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

So if someone says that they no longer believe in the Church/Gospel/BOM/Joseph Smith/whatever, we should probably give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume that they just want to watch porn / drink hot caffeine / watch The Passion of the Christ (the R-rated version) / etc.  Because they can do all of those things and still believe in the fundamental claims of Mormonism.

How did The Passion of the Christ get in there?

Did you see it, and can you describe why a good Mormon might not want to see it?

Or is it just a bugbear?

[canard78]

How did The Passion of the Christ get in there?

Did you see it, and can you describe why a good Mormon might not want to see it?

Or is it just a bugbear?

Probably because it's rated R

[mormonnewb]

How did The Passion of the Christ get in there?

Did you see it, and can you describe why a good Mormon might not want to see it?

Or is it just a bugbear?

It's R-rated. That makes it off-limits for several people in my ward. It can't be the case that I'm the only person who has ever heard of this (misapplied) rule.

[Robert F. Smith]

It's R-rated. That makes it off-limits for several people in my ward. It can't be the case that I'm the only person who has ever heard of this (misapplied) rule.

I thought that you might have had a more substantive rule in mind, such as that it had nudity, cuss words, and general immorality openly displayed -- just a story with no redeeming social or religious value.

 

When you saw it, did it have any of that, or equivalent justification for not seeing it?  Was the "R" rating justified, and if so for what reason?

 

Surely you are aware that whole families of evangelicals went to see it in droves?  Why might that have been?

 

Get my drift, Newby?  Or did you just blinfly list it for the "R" rating alone?  Because someone in your ward thinks that is an absolute rule?

[Sevenbak]

It's R-rated. That makes it off-limits for several people in my ward. It can't be the case that I'm the only person who has ever heard of this (misapplied) rule.

Is R-rated made for man or man made for R-rated?

Church owned KSL made the executive decision to air Schindlers List in it's entirety, nudity and all.

Some things are worth knowing and seeing, even with an R rating. The Book of Mormon would get a hard R if ever made into a true to life film.

That said there are very few R movies I would see myself, but I think the spirit of the law is important here. The ratings rules have fluctuated tremendously over the years too and are subjective to the politics and whims of men.

Now try living back in the 20s with the precode movies and then we have a whole different discussion...

[Tacenda]

It's R-rated. That makes it off-limits for several people in my ward. It can't be the case that I'm the only person who has ever heard of this (misapplied) rule.

I've never seen it but there's a special showing of it at a nearby theatre on Easter Sunday that I'd like to see!

[mormonnewb]

I thought that you might have had a more substantive rule in mind, such as that it had nudity, cuss words, and general immorality openly displayed -- just a story with no redeeming social or religious value.

When you saw it, did it have any of that, or equivalent justification for not seeing it? Was the "R" rating justified, and if so for what reason?

Surely you are aware that whole families of evangelicals went to see it in droves? Why might that have been?

Get my drift, Newby? Or did you just blinfly list it for the "R" rating alone? Because someone in your ward thinks that is an absolute rule?

I was sarcastically making the point you just made. At the time, I attended a non-denom church, where we went together in Meet the Mormon-like drives. I'm GUESSING that LDS attendance was a little more sparse due in part to the R-rating (and in part because it's not exactly a 13th article of faith story).

[sunstoned]

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?

+1000 Excellent.