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

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Some historians have claimed that the Book of Mormon had primarily an iconic function early on in Mormonism.  That is, it was little used for reading for theological reflection, but was instead taken as a "sign" of the nature of the Restoration.  The mere fact of its existence was its true value, quite aside from its content.  To that degree, it performed a "talismanic" function.  It is of very little importance whether you or I share that social construction, because the assertion has to do with the acceptance of it as a talisman by those who are still living with unreflective assumptions controlled by their First Naivete.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Yet the liminal quality of the BofM goes together with its talismanic function as the sign of the Call of the Prophet Motif.  How could they be differentiated?

 

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.

This is a prime example of the muddle ground to which we are being subjected.  You simply cannot have it both ways, Gray.  How can we differentiate the BofM from the content of the Romantic movement of Joseph's day?  Or from the American Renaissance?

[Robert F. Smith]

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

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.

Sounds rather subjective and quite human.  And that is truly what the madding crowd wants . . .

 

But is such nice, relativistic schlock enough for you, canard?  Or is there something more?

Edited March 31, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Blair, Midgley posed a question that I am curious to know the answer to and I think you, an insider, may be in a position to provide it. Did someone from MI solicit this paper from Owen, or did Owen, hearing of the much ballyhooed "new direction," approach MI on his own and offer the paper for publication?

Pardon if the question has already been answered elsewhere. If so, I just haven't seen it.

[canard78]

Sounds rather subjective and quite human. And that is truly what the madding crowd wants . . .

But is such nice, relativistic schlock enough for you, canard? Or is there something more?

Everything is subjective. We're all experiencing life through our own, relative, view.

So how else do we test something? We apply a principle and evaluate the outcome.

It has to be enough... I've got nothing else.

[Kevin Christensen]

Everything is subjective. We're all experiencing life through our own, relative, view.

So how else do we test something? We apply a principle and evaluate the outcome.

It has to be enough... I've got nothing else.

If I remove the beams from my own eyes, that inevitably changes my own relative view. Consequently, I see differently, with a new clarity of vision. I noticed that my relative view of the Book of Mormon changed radically after reading Nibley, Sorenson, Barker, Goff, and several others.

There are basically three kinds questions we can ask, three kinds of tests we can make of something like the Book of Mormon:

Does it, and/or its presence conform with what I or my preferred authorities think?

Does it, and/or its content and social baggage (that is, Mormon culture) enable my desires?

It is really what it claims to be?

Within those larger questions, are many smaller questions that we use to weigh our answers to the larger ones.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Gray]

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.

 

You're assuming hostility where there is none, Scott. 

[Gray]

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

 

While there are bits of real history embedded in the OT, the OT is largely not historical. If it were it would be anachronistic 

[Gray]

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").

I disagree.

CFR. And good luck with it!

 

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?

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.

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

 

For an introduction to Biblical historicity, please see the following:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2015/01/were-abraham-isaac-and-jacob-real-people/

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2015/02/the-good-news-of-christ-historicity-and-the-new-testament/

 

To be clear, there is no such thing as ancient scripture that is also historical. Ancient peoples did not write history. The genre is relatively modern. 

 

So if the BOM is authentically ancient, it wouldn't be an accurate history of the Nephites. But the reverse doesn't follow - the BOM could be not historical and also not ancient. But the modern idea of taking ancient scripture as if it were history as we understand it modernly is an exercise in presentism. 

 

Regarding Jesus, his existence and literal atonement are not dependent upon the historicity of the NT or the BOM. Whether the atonement happened or not is a matter of faith. But the reality of those events cannot be demonstrated historically.

 

Also regarding the atonement, there are many different theories of atonement. Also, you can choose to take the resurrection as a literal event, or as something symbolic, or as both. I believe there is power in all of those things. 

 

I'm sure you'll strenuously disagree with that last bit, but whether or not something has "power" is entirely subjective. 

Edited March 31, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

Yet the liminal quality of the BofM goes together with its talismanic function as the sign of the Call of the Prophet Motif.  How could they be differentiated?

 

This is a prime example of the muddle ground to which we are being subjected.  You simply cannot have it both ways, Gray.  How can we differentiate the BofM from the content of the Romantic movement of Joseph's day?  Or from the American Renaissance?

 

Well, I'm not suggesting that anyone has to ignore the talismanic function of the BofM. But I think it's possible to simply look at it as a religious text, divorced from considerations of who the author was. We don't know the names of most of the authors of the Books of the Bible, after all. 

 

Personally I view the Book of Mormon as both a product of its time (the 19th century) AND a sacred text. I view the Torah in the same way. And the D&C, for that matter. 

Edited March 31, 2015 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

You're assuming hostility where there is none, Scott. 

Be that as it may, the assumption ought to be understandable, given the association of "talisman" with magic and the occult. Intended or not, I do believe the well is poisoned by such an association.

[Gray]

Be that as it may, the assumption ought to be understandable, given the association of "talisman" with magic and the occult. Intended or not, I do believe the well is poisoned by such an association.

 

I'm not accustomed to holding a negative view of magic (I'm not a fundamentalist evangelical, after all, nor have I ever boycotted a Harry Potter film) and I personally don't hold any negative associations with the word "Talisman". 

 

In any case, I'm using the word in the way Robert F. Smith described - no reference to actual magic is implied. Maybe you'd prefer the word icon or symbol

Edited March 31, 2015 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not accustomed to holding a negative view of magic (I'm not a fundamentalist evangelical, after all, nor have I ever boycotted a Harry Potter film) and I personally don't hold any negative associations with the word "Talisman". 

 

In any case, I'm using the word in the way Robert F. Smith described - no reference to actual magic is implied. 

More well poisoning. I'm not a "fundamentalist evangelical" either, and I enjoyed all of the Harry Potter films. In fact, we have all of the DVDs but one in our home library.

 

Whether or not you personally hold a negative association with talisman, its application to the Church of Jesus Christ or anything appertaining thereto could hardly be viewed as anything other than disparagement.

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, I'm not suggesting that anyone has to ignore the talismanic function of the BofM. But I think it's possible to simply look at it as a religious text, divorced from considerations of who the author was. We don't know the names of most of the authors of the Books of the Bible, after all. 

 

Personally I view the Book of Mormon as both a product of its time (the 19th century) AND a sacred text. I view the Torah in the same way. And the D&C, for that matter. 

All your points are well taken, Gray.  However, as you know, there are some who take umbrage when the Bible or Book of Mormon are analyzed as literature (as Robert Alter, Northrop Frye, Richard Rust, and Grant Hardy have done), as though doing so is a sign of apostasy.

[Gray]

More well poisoning. I'm not a "fundamentalist evangelical" either, and I enjoyed all of the Harry Potter films. In fact, we have all of the DVDs but one in our home library.

 

 

 

I didn't accuse you of being one, obviously. I assume the defensiveness here comes from dealing with evangelical accusations of Mormonism's connection with "the occult." For some reason you bridle at the word talisman, and insist on interpreting it to mean something equivalent to "the occult." At least, that's how it seems to me.

 

 

 

 Whether or not you personally hold a negative association with talisman, its application to the Church of Jesus Christ or anything appertaining thereto could hardly be viewed as anything other than disparagement.

 

If you're determined to take offense where none is intended, I guess I can't stop you. But I'll just reiterate that none was intended on my part. 

Edited March 31, 2015 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm not accustomed to holding a negative view of magic (I'm not a fundamentalist evangelical, after all, nor have I ever boycotted a Harry Potter film) and I personally don't hold any negative associations with the word "Talisman". 

 

In any case, I'm using the word in the way Robert F. Smith described - no reference to actual magic is implied. Maybe you'd prefer the word icon or symbol

The other thing is that, among historians (especially historians of religion), it is believed that no valid distinction can be made between magic and religion.  Jan Shipps and others have made that point repeatedly, even though it doesn't seem to "take" in some quarters.

[Gray]

All your points are well taken, Gray.  However, as you know, there are some who take umbrage when the Bible or Book of Mormon are analyzed as literature (as Robert Alter, Northrop Frye, Richard Rust, and Grant Hardy have done), as though doing so is a sign of apostasy.

 

Yes, some bristle at that. I understand the reaction. I think that happens within many Christian traditions - there are gate keepers who view that approach as encroachment of secularism into the realm of the sacred.

 

That's my perception - I'm not a scholar and my view here is limited.  

[Mormonmaniac]

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?

Its apparent that you do not believe the Book of Mormon to be an actual historical account. I am fine with that but please realize that most LDS view the Book of Mormon as a true historical account of ancient inhabitants that lived and died somewhere in the Americas and that belief is the foundation of their testimony and belief in Christ and his latter day dealings with his church.

[Gray]

Its apparent that you do not believe the Book of Mormon to be an actual historical account. I am fine with that but please realize that most LDS view the Book of Mormon as a true historical account of ancient inhabitants that lived and died somewhere in the Americas and that belief is the foundation of their testimony and belief in Christ and his latter day dealings with his church.

 

Yes, I understand that, and I respect it. 

[Senator]

.....most LDS view the Book of Mormon as a true historical account of ancient inhabitants that lived and died somewhere in the Americas and that belief is the foundation of their testimony and belief in Christ and his latter day dealings with his church.

 

I'm glad you said most, because I for one do not agree with your statement.  For me, the Book of Mormon is not the foundation of my testimony of Jesus Christ. The New Testament holds that position for me. Likewise the BofM is not the foundation of my testimony of His latter day dealings with His church; the Doctrine and Covenants is.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Blair, Midgley posed a question that I am curious to know the answer to and I think you, an insider, may be in a position to provide it. Did someone from MI solicit this paper from Owen, or did Owen, hearing of the much ballyhooed "new direction," approach MI on his own and offer the paper for publication?Pardon if the question has already been answered elsewhere. If so, I just haven't seen it.

I'm not sure. Given that the paper itself doesn't say what it's been depicted as saying, I'm not sure what the difference would be. The idea of a "much ballyhooed 'new direction'" doesn't comport well with what the JBMS is all about. Rather than a severance with the past, the JBMS continues to build on its past legacy, including work investigating the text as ancient scripture. Have you had the opportunity yet to read the latest volume?

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm glad you said most, because I for one do not agree with your statement.  For me, the Book of Mormon is not the foundation of my testimony of Jesus Christ. The New Testament holds that position for me. Likewise the BofM is not the foundation of my testimony of His latter day dealings with His church; the Doctrine and Covenants is.

I don't think it works to separate them.

 

President Ezra Taft Benson explained it well:

 

 

The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants are bound together as revelations from Israel’s God to gather and prepare His people for the second coming of the Lord.

The bringing forth of these sacred volumes of scripture “for the salvation of a ruined world” cost “the best blood of the nineteenth century”—that of Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum (D&C 135:6).

Each divine witness contains a great proclamation to all the world—the title page of the Book of Mormon, and section 1, the Lord’s preface to the Doctrine and Covenants.

“This generation,” said the Lord to Joseph Smith, “shall have my word through you” (D&C 5:10). And so it has through the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and other modern revelations.

The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants testify of each other. You cannot believe one and not the other.

The Book of Mormon testifies of modern books of scripture. It refers to them as “other books” and “last records” which “establish the truth” of the Bible and make known the “plain and precious things which have been taken away” from the Bible (1 Ne. 13:39–40).

Excluding the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants is by far the greatest external witness and evidence which we have from the Lord that the Book of Mormon is true. At least thirteen sections in the Doctrine and Covenants give us confirming knowledge and divine witness that the Book of Mormon is the word of God (see D&C 1; D&C 3; D&C 5; D&C 8; D&C 10–11; D&C 17–18; D&C 20; D&C 27; D&C 42; D&C 84; D&C 135).

The Doctrine and Covenants is the binding link between the Book of Mormon and the continuing work of the Restoration through the Prophet Joseph Smith and his successors.

In the Doctrine and Covenants we learn of temple work, eternal families, the degrees of glory, Church organization, and many other great truths of the Restoration.

“Search these commandments,” said the Lord of the Doctrine and Covenants, “for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled.

“What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (D&C 1:37–38).

The Book of Mormon brings men to Christ. The Doctrine and Covenants brings men to Christ’s kingdom, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” (D&C 1:30). I know that.

The Book of Mormon is the “keystone” of our religion, and the Doctrine and Covenants is the capstone, with continuing latter-day revelation. The Lord has placed His stamp of approval on both the keystone and the capstone.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not sure. Given that the paper itself doesn't say what it's been depicted as saying, I'm not sure what the difference would be. The idea of a "much ballyhooed 'new direction'" doesn't comport well with what the JBMS is all about. Rather than a severance with the past, the JBMS continues to build on its past legacy, including work investigating the text as ancient scripture. Have you had the opportunity yet to read the latest volume?

No. As a non-subscriber, I'm not allowed access and presumably won't be until next year.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

I don't think it works to separate them.

 

 

 

It does for me.

 

[Mormonmaniac]

I'm glad you said most, because I for one do not agree with your statement.  For me, the Book of Mormon is not the foundation of my testimony of Jesus Christ. The New Testament holds that position for me. Likewise the BofM is not the foundation of my testimony of His latter day dealings with His church; the Doctrine and Covenants is.

Do you believe the Book of Mormon to be nonfiction?