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

[Kenngo1969]

Academic freedom, or in this case, the lack of it is a serious issue.  It is nothing to make fun of.

I have no problem with academic freedom, I recognize that it's important, and that issues surrounding it are serious. I just don't think it should be used as a weapon.  Too often, those who trumpet its alleged virtues the loudest are those who wish to change the institutions with which they are affiliated in fundamental ways, such that those institutions would no longer be true to the other values which are important to the people who founded those institutions.  If one does not feel the institution with which he currently is affiliated affords him an acceptable degree of academic freedom, he's free to seek affiliation with a different institution.  If one limits his choices in that regard by specializing in an esoteric, idiosyncratic academic discipline that is found in only a limited number of university curricula, he needs to own up to that choice and recognize the reality of its consequences.  

 

Too many people confuse liberty (including academic freedom) with license: only the latter is unfettered; the former is not. In the case of the former, the wise dictum of Peter Parker's Uncle Ben with respect to power is equally applicable to freedom: with great freedom comes great responsibility.  Too many people (especially academics, in some cases and in some respects) want all of the former and none of the latter.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Gray]

 

We need to immediately disregard such phony baloney rules, which not only diminish all of us as Mormons, but diminish the Brethren as well.  The ex-Mormons and anti-Mormons latch onto such nonsense as though it represents the authentic nature of Mormonism.

 

While I agree with you that the idea that we can't watch R-rated movies is silly, that's what I was taught growing up and it still remains a minor taboo in the church. 

[Mormonmaniac]

Scary. The idea that the Book of Mormon either modern or fictional is very scary. It's a historical and truthful account of the ancient Americans. We either believe it, or we don't. We cannot be lukewarm in the defense of it.

President and Prophet Benson was very clear on this point. It is the keystone of our faith. We must not, we can not waffle on this.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/10/the-book-of-mormon-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng

I agree. I have talked to some people who claim to be active LDS members who view the Book of Mormon as fiction. To me that is a grand paradox. Either the Book of Mormon is a true historical record and the LDS church is true in that regard or the Book of Mormon is a fraud and so is our entire religion. There can be no middle ground.

[Gray]

I agree. I have talked to some people who claim to be active LDS members who view the Book of Mormon as fiction. To me that is a grand paradox. Either the Book of Mormon is a true historical record and the LDS church is true in that regard or the Book of Mormon is a fraud and so is our entire religion. There can be no middle ground.

 

What does the Book of Mormon's historicity have to do with whether or not is is true?

[smac97]

What does the Book of Mormon's historicity have to do with whether or not is is true?

I analyzed this issue at some length earlier on in this thread.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Mormonmaniac]

What does the Book of Mormon's historicity have to do with whether or not is is true?

Your question doesn't make sense. If something is defined as a historical record it is thus assumed it is a true account of that said people who wrote it.

[Gray]

Your question doesn't make sense. If something is defined as a historical record it is thus assumed it is a true account of that said people who wrote it.

 

I can find a hundred more or less accurate historical records at the local B&N. Does that make them "true" in any spiritually meaningful sense?

[Hamilton Porter]

I agree. I have talked to some people who claim to be active LDS members who view the Book of Mormon as fiction. To me that is a grand paradox. Either the Book of Mormon is a true historical record and the LDS church is true in that regard or the Book of Mormon is a fraud and so is our entire religion. There can be no middle ground.

That's fine. Just don't drive people out the Church if they disagree.

[smac97]

I can find a hundred more or less accurate historical records at the local B&N. Does that make them "true" in any spiritually meaningful sense?

 

I have addressed this issue several times.  See, e.g., here, here, and here.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Gray]

I have addressed this issue several times.  See, e.g., here, here, and here.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

I guess it comes down to whether you think it's important that the Book of Mormon have some kind of talismanic function. That's not important to me. 

[smac97]

That's fine. Just don't drive people out the Church if they disagree.

 

I agree.  Hence my previous comments: "As deeply flawed as that position is, I welcome such persons who buy into the 'inspired fiction' meme in fellowship in the Church."

However, I have also said this (emphases added):

 

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.

...

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

[smac97]

I guess it comes down to whether you think it's important that the Book of Mormon have some kind of talismanic function. That's not important to me. 

 

First, I'm not sure what "talismanic function" means.  Perhaps you could clarify what you mean.

 

Second, I have presented lengthy, substantive analysis regarding the importance and overall necessity for the historicity of The Book of Mormon.  I've not postulated any need for anything remotely approaching The Book of Mormon fulfilling a "talismanic function."

 

Third, The Book of Mormon having "some kind of talismanic function" is not important to me, either.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited March 30, 2015 by smac97

[ksfisher]

I guess it comes down to whether you think it's important that the Book of Mormon have some kind of talismanic function. That's not important to me. 

 

How would a belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon lead one to believe that the book has some sort of magical properties?

[Gray]

Kind of responding to both smac97 and kfisher, by talismanic I mean using it as some kind of tangible evidence of Joseph Smith's ability as a prophet/translator, as opposed to using it as a sacred text. 

 

There's a bit of a catch 22 with the issue of the BOM being historical and/or authentically ancient. If it's authentically ancient scripture, then there is little chance of the Book of Mormon being historical, even if there were historical Nephites. Ancient Jewish and Christian writers didn't write history, nor would they have known how to write history, any more than they could have written romance novels. 

 

So if the BOM is historical, it's likely not ancient, and vice versa. In any case, the spiritual value of the teachings of the BOM are completely separate from the question of the book's historicity or ancientness. The teachings are what they are, regardless of the book's origins. The BOM could have been written by time-traveling Shaolin Monks in 25th century. That wouldn't have any bearing on the content. 

[ksfisher]

There's a bit of a catch 22 with the issue of the BOM being historical and/or authentically ancient. If it's authentically ancient scripture, then there is little chance of the Book of Mormon being historical, even if there were historical Nephites. Ancient Jewish and Christian writers didn't write history, nor would they have known how to write history, any more than they could have written romance novels. 

 

 

 

The Nephites were neither Jewish nor new testament era Christians, they were Nephites.  And while ancient Israelites didn't write history in the same manner that we do, or think of history as we do in the 21st century, they did produce the books of Kings, Chronicles, and Samuel, all of which contain history.

 

Good articles to start with:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2000-fair-conference/2000-a-real-people-time-and-place-contextualizing-the-book-of-mormon

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2001-fair-conference/2001-a-social-history-of-the-early-nephites

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2002-fair-conference/2002-the-gadianton-robbers-in-mormons-theological-history-their-structural-role-and-plausible-identification

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2004-fair-conference/2004-the-case-for-historicity-discerning-the-book-of-mormons-production-culture

Edited March 30, 2015 by ksfisher

[Scott Lloyd]

Kind of responding to both smac97 and kfisher, by talismanic I mean using it as some kind of tangible evidence of Joseph Smith's ability as a prophet/translator, as opposed to using it as a sacred text. 

 

Use of the word "talismanic"is a blatant instance of well-poisoning on the part of Gray.

 

But for some insights on Joseph's translation of the Book of Mormon as pertaining to its historicity, see last week's Deseret News column by Daniel Peterson.

 

According to those familiar with the process, he dictated the Book of Mormon from words that somehow appeared in a “seer stone” or (much the same thing) in the Urim and Thummim. He rarely if ever actually had the plates with him; he couldn’t read what was on them except through revelation anyway, and he could receive revelation (via the “interpreters”) just as easily without the plates as with them. (So why were the plates necessary? Perhaps, among other things, to reassure him and the witnesses who saw and testified of them — and, thus also, us — that he was dealing with something objectively real and external to himself.)

 

[smac97]

Kind of responding to both smac97 and kfisher, by talismanic I mean using it as some kind of tangible evidence of Joseph Smith's ability as a prophet/translator, as opposed to using it as a sacred text.

I think The Book of Mormon is intended evidence of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling. This does not make the book "talismanic" in any meaningful sense ("anything whose presence exercises a remarkable or powerful influence on human feelings or actions").

There's a bit of a catch 22 with the issue of the BOM being historical and/or authentically ancient.

I disagree.

If it's authentically ancient scripture, then there is little chance of the Book of Mormon being historical, even if there were historical Nephites. Ancient Jewish and Christian writers didn't write history, nor would they have known how to write history, any more than they could have written romance novels.

CFR. And good luck with it!

 

So if the BOM is historical, it's likely not ancient, and vice versa.

I cannot make sense of this. The Book of Mormon claims to be both historical and ancient. The absence of one pretty much precludes the other.

And I really don't get the "and vice versa" bit. If the BOM is not historical, it likely is ancient? How do you figure that?

In any case, the spiritual value of the teachings of the BOM are completely separate from the question of the book's historicity or ancientness.

I strongly disagree. The "spiritual value" of Jesus Christ as the Son of God is dependent entirely on Him being an actual person, on His historicity. If Jesus Christ is a fictional person, then He has no more power in our lives than Gandalf or Atticus Finch or Captain America. A similar line of reasoning applies to The Book of Mormon.

I provided links to my previous comments. I guess you did not read them. Oh, well.

The teachings are what they are, regardless of the book's origins. The BOM could have been written by time-traveling Shaolin Monks in 25th century. That wouldn't have any bearing on the content.

I strongly, strongly disagree. And I have explained at length the nature and basis of my disagreement. But until you read and respond to that information, there's not much to discuss.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

DUP.

Edited March 30, 2015 by smac97

[LifeOnaPlate]

 

Interesting stuff!

 

Here is a link to Dr. Gee's second blog post on this subject.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Just to be clear, that link to Gee's second blog post wasn't Gee's response to Owen; Gee had evidently already written when Owen was writing his response, and it appeared before Owen's "Scholar to Scholar" piece was posted. The invitation for Gee to respond in a "Scholar to Scholar" post is still extended but as yet unanswered. 

[canard78]

I agree. Hence my previous comments: "As deeply flawed as that position is, I welcome such persons who buy into the 'inspired fiction' meme in fellowship in the Church."

However, I have also said this (emphases added):

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.

Thanks,

-Smac

Actually this isn't entirely true.

I'm guessing you've experienced the power of the atonement? I know I have. The soaring, sweeping, feeling of forgiveness. The enabling, invigorating, motivating feeling of forgiving.

In both of those examples, a belief and conviction in the atonement and its principles lead me to those experiences. My life changed, I moved forward, I embraced the principle of personal progress and change that the atonement teaches.

Now... Suppose for a moment that Christ never lived. Did my "saving/changing/enabling" experiences never actually happen? Did I imagine them? Or is it possible that I had an experience that saved me from the depth of despair, damning attitudes and personally imposed limitations?

If those experiences led me further along the path to being more Christlike (even if that person is only fictional) am I not still making personal progress.

The historical authenticity of Christ's atonement and resurrection and the Book of Mormon's origins is practically unknowable. As such their historical reality is irrelevant. What is relevant, the only relevance, is whether a belief in those things leads to an effect - positive change.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Also, there appears to be a rather intense discussion on this subject over on Daniel Peterson's blog (in the comments).  Here's an excerpt from remarks left by Louis Midgley:

Oi!

-Smac

 

Also of note: Midgley's comments seem to be based entirely on Gee's problematic blog posts rather than the Owen article, and they seem to have been written prior to Owen's blog post demonstrating Gee's inaccuracies. 

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't know what else to call the current state of affairs than "perverse."  It used to be that critics/skeptics/outsiders wrote about Mormon texts and topics elsewhere, and defenders used Maxwell Institute organs as fora for critique and response.  Now, outsiders are writing in Maxwell Institute organs, while defenders now have been marginalized and forced to find other fora for such critique and response.

 

Do I have that about right?  

 

You don't have it about right. As has been the case for years, outsiders sometimes publish in Institute publications.

 

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

 

As noted already, Gee has been invited to offer responses to Owen directly on the Maxwell Institute Blog, and of course he can submit articles to our Journal of Book of Mormon Studies at any time he chooses, subject now to the same peer review that all contributors undergo. He may or may not choose to do so, but the invitation has been directly extended, and no discouragement has been given him. If he prefers to discuss things on his private blog instead of enter more directly into scholarly conversation that's his choice. 

[LifeOnaPlate]

Given that Maxwell Institute (FARMS Review), under the direction of Daniel Peterson, published this accused critic; then I suspect you do not "have that about right".

 

And given:

 

(Editor's note): Dr. Gee is invited to respond to these queries in an upcoming installment of "Scholar to Scholar" as well. He has since posted another critique of Owen's article on his personal blog, and Owen is again invited to respond here. —BHodges

 

I suspect you do not "have that about right".

Oh, I see you had it covered! 

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think Paul Owen is trying pretty hard to have a dialogue with LDS scholars.  John Gee writes much that I like, but not always.  I think he is going over the top on this one.  When I first read Mosser and Owen in the 1999 FARMS Review of Books, I was surprised at the thought of reading anti-Mormons in an LDS publication.  Then I realized they were`t anti-Mormon and were trying to build some bridges.  I don`t see his line of thinking much different than Krister Stendahl`s saying that the Book of Mormon reminded him of Targums-inspired commentaries of the scriptures.  These Targums were often based on some mythology, but were considered inspired.  Krister was also a good friend to the LDS academic community.  He was part of the non-LDS authors who wrote in Reflections on Mormonism, a Truman Madsen project in 1978.  These scholars tried to build some bridges, but not every word they wrote in those essays was faith-promoting, but were respectful.  

 

I can add to the list, but Paul Owen and others are trying and don`t deserve to be shot down any more than the Maxwell Institute does.  We have to be willing to read literature that isn`t always parroting what we want to hear back to us.  The volume that the MI printed Paul Owen`s has a number of other articles by non-Mormons.  I found several of them faith-promoting.  I still read Mormon Interpreter and listen to the FAIR conference.  I have learned from all of them.  

 

 

I really appreciate this perspective, readstoomuch. It certainly aligns with what the Institute is trying to do under the direction of Brigham Young University. 

[Robert F. Smith]

I agree. I have talked to some people who claim to be active LDS members who view the Book of Mormon as fiction. To me that is a grand paradox. Either the Book of Mormon is a true historical record and the LDS church is true in that regard or the Book of Mormon is a fraud and so is our entire religion. There can be no middle ground.

What worries me is the muddle ground which I find being bandied about so freely on this board -- as though it is the secure and final answer to all questions great and small.  Real life is seldom filled with all black and all white questions or answers, but rather with annoying shades of gray.