Nephites! Yea Or Nay?

[canard78]

Of course they existed historically unless you believe Joseph Smith is a liar. Not only does he state that he translated the record on the plates but he also states he met in person, Moroni, Nephi and others! So I say unequivocally that if you believe Joseph is a true prophet of God and that God Himself verified that the record is true then you must accept its historic authenticity. There is no middle ground no matter how you try to justify it this new age mormonism is not correct.

He met them in person, saw them in vision... and still didn't have a clue about where they lived or that they had neighbours.

Maybe he forgot to ask. If he had, he might have known the Nephites didn't arrive to an empty continent and live, at some point, in Ohio.

[Five Solas]

Maybe I'm wrong in my observations.

 

Among the RLDS/CoC, President W. Wallace Smith was the first member

of the First Presidency to "disbelieve" in Nephites -- followed by numerous

stake presidents, apostles, seventies and high priests in elevated callings.

 

I'd say that, c. 1960, belief in Nephites was removed from the "worthiness"

estimation of Reorganized Latter Day Saints' being considered for high

offices and important callings.

 

Perhaps B. H. Roberts, Apostle Talmadge and other LDS leaders stopped

believing and still magnified their callings. But, I'm not certain of that.

 

UD

It would be interesting to do an anonymous survey of top LDS leaders, including BYU and CES positions and ask about belief in literal Nephites.  Pretty sure the number of Nephite disbelievers isn't zero--and as you suggest, folks may still "magnify" their callings regardless.  And then repeat the survey every couple of years.  Establishing any trend would be more interesting than the count of yes or no.  Also worth tracking would be the number who chose to click the link (knowing what it was) and then subsequently chose not to express their position.   

 

For those early on in the thread questioning my motive for creating the poll, I was inspired by the thread here, discussing how this board has evolved in recent years.  It wasn't to sow discord (y'all don't need any help from me).  I actually thought there would be more support for the second and third options. 

:0)

 

--Erik

[Uncle Dale]

It would be interesting to do an anonymous survey of top LDS leaders, including BYU and CES positions and ask about belief in literal Nephites.  Pretty sure the number of Nephite disbelievers isn't zero--and as you suggest, folks may still "magnify" their callings regardless.  And then repeat the survey every couple of years.  Establishing any trend would be more interesting than the count of yes or no.  Also worth tracking would be the number who chose to click the link (knowing what it was) and then subsequently chose not to express their position.   

 

For those early on in the thread questioning my motive for creating the poll, I was inspired by the thread here, discussing how this board has evolved in recent years.  It wasn't to sow discord (y'all don't need any help from me).  I actually thought there would be more support for the second and third options. 

:0)

 

--Erik

 

 

Interesting thoughts, Erik.

 

I suppose there was a time, amongst some Christians,

that a member's refusal to believe in Philistines would

have brought on severe repercussions. Certainly such

a stubborn disbeliever could never have been elevated

to the office of Archbishop of Canterbury, or to be Pope

of the Catholic Church.

 

As destiny would have it, the biblical Philistines eventually

were "discovered" --, or, at least enough evidence of their

existence was dug up in Gaza and the surrounding area,

to make their biblical references a real possibility.

 

Had a rogue Borgia Pope never truly believed in the

Bible's "peoples of the sea" (but kept his infidelity a

secret) -- we could today say that his ethnological

disbelief was an ill-founded choice.

 

Perhaps the same thing will happen with the Nephites.

 

Perhaps evidence of their coastal landing and spreading

out in America (like the Philistines landed and spread

out in the Palestine named for them) will be one day dug

up, and "Columbia" will have to be re-named Nephiana.

 

But -- I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

I'd guess that the Reorganized LDS and their CoC

successors have made the correct decision, when

it comes to ancient Israelite-American anthropology.

 

UD

[thesometimesaint]

It would be interesting to do an anonymous survey of top LDS leaders, including BYU and CES positions and ask about belief in literal Nephites.  Pretty sure the number of Nephite disbelievers isn't zero--and as you suggest, folks may still "magnify" their callings regardless.  And then repeat the survey every couple of years.  Establishing any trend would be more interesting than the count of yes or no.  Also worth tracking would be the number who chose to click the link (knowing what it was) and then subsequently chose not to express their position.   

 

For those early on in the thread questioning my motive for creating the poll, I was inspired by the thread here, discussing how this board has evolved in recent years.  It wasn't to sow discord (y'all don't need any help from me).  I actually thought there would be more support for the second and third options. 

:0)

 

--Erik

 

 It is as close to zero as is humanly possible.

[Gray]

No, I haven't been arguing for a "fundamentalist" interpretation of the Book of Mormon (I said nothing about the Bible).  I've been arguing that the Book of Mormon is a historical record that chronicles events that really happened, or in other words, it is what it claims to be. 

 

As to the word "fundamentalist", I don't know what that actually means to you, but as an aficionado of Parke Godwin's two novels, "Waiting for the Galactic Bus" and "The Snake Oil Wars", Godwin always uses the word "fundamentalist" and "fundie" with the most negative connotation possible.  Which is, I suppose, your lookout as well.

 

The late Parke Godwin is not, by the way, the Godwin of Godwin's Law.

 

And no, a MINO is to me someone who doesn't believe in, or have a testimony of, the divine origins of the Church, as a whole.  Such a one remains in the Church for the social gospel, and I wouldn't ever suggest that they leave.  I suppose that a member might believe in the Book of Mormon as a divinely-inspired fiction while believing that Joseph Smith et al. were and are actually prophets, and thus avoid my thinking they're a MINO.  But how can someone believe that it's a fiction but nevertheless scripture when a character from the book (Moroni) was the one who revealed it's source to Joseph Smith?  It would be like Elmer Fudd showing up to reveal the autobiography of Bugs Bunny.  How could you ever take THAT seriously?

 

Well, fundamentalism is, by definition, the belief in a strict/literal interpretation of scripture. Your insistence that the record should be taken strictly at face value (a very modern way of looking at scripture, by the way) is definitely fundamentalist. And while it's true that in polls most members of the church hold similar views to those in other fundamentalist faiths (Evangelicals, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc), I would argue that the founding philosophies of Mormonism allow for alternatives to the fundamentalist approach. Specifically, the idea that truth can come from any source, and should be accepted. That's the beauty of Mormonism right there. 

Edited June 11, 2015 by Gray

[bcuzbcuz]

I must be missing something. Why then do you put corn as an argument against the Book of Mormon? Or am I misunderstanding your intended point? You are aware that evidence of ancient barley, which critics had said never existed in the ancient Americas, has been discovered? The list of things that have been discovered over the years, that critics contended never would be, goes on and on. Whereas less than 10% of 60 items mentioned in the Nephite record were once known to exist, there is already evidence for 75% of them. I think the Nephite record is doing just fine, regardless of what critics may think.

More importantly, is the Book of Mormon something you have prayerfully studied?

Your last assertion is an Interesting one. It's certainly not one that I would be willing to bet on.

My university scholarship has been all about the studies of history. My career has been about teaching history. I recently, upon retiring, went back to university to study Egyptology. In researching primary and secondary sources it is extremely important to view all sources with a critical eye. It is very important to look beyond simplistic analysis of statistics. When a source provides information one must be careful to not let a prejudice provide more importance than the information is worth.

I mentioned that corn is mentioned just once in the BofM. You asked why I would list that as an argument against the BofM. Corn, in English, is not always equated with maize. Maize originates from prehistoric Meso-America.

"Prior to their domestication, maize plants only grew small, one-inch long corn cobs, and only one per plant. Many centuries of artificial selection by the indigenous people of the Americas resulted in the development of maize plants capable of growing several cobs per plant that were usually several inches long each." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize

"The word "corn" has many different meanings depending on what country you are in. Corn in the United States is also called maize or Indian corn. In some countries, corn means the leading crop grown in a certain district. Corn in England means wheat; in Scotland and Ireland, it refers to oats. Corn mentioned in the Bible probably refers to wheat or barley."

http://agron-www.agron.iastate.edu/Courses/agron212/readings/corn_history.htm

When Joseph Smith used the word "corn" in the BofM we do not know if he meant maize or wheat or barley.

When the Spanish conquistadors moved beyond their murderous campaigns and (mostly) priests began recording what they observed, maize was found to be the most basic of foods. Maize tortillas were eaten both plain, like bread and filled with hundreds of varieties of fillers from grains to bird tongues. Many records exist of maize tortillas from the home and the market.

So one time "corn" only means that it wasnät important. Potatoes from South America aren't mentioned even once in the BofM

[ERayR]

I opted for the last choice on the list.

 

Had you asked me, say, maybe 30 years ago, I might

have replied, "Whether or not Nephites were real people

matters no more than whether Balaam's donkey really

spoke Hebrew in the old Bible story."

 

But now -- after many years of study and reflection -- my

opinion is that the leaders of the Mormon Church should

allow each adult member to form his/her own conclusions,

without any reference to worthiness, calling, or status in

the Church.

 

Is that really such a terrible opinion for one to hold sincerely?

 

UD

 

Yes if you actively promote that view.  The Church has a duty to protect the integrity of its teachings.

[ERayR]

My university scholarship has been all about the studies of history. My career has been about teaching history. I recently, upon retiring, went back to university to study Egyptology. In researching primary and secondary sources it is extremely important to view all sources with a critical eye. It is very important to look beyond simplistic analysis of statistics. When a source provides information one must be careful to not let a prejudice provide more importance than the information is worth.

 

 

When a source provides information one must be careful to not let a prejudice provide more or less importance than the information is worth.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

How is that possible? Please define how you define "know" and how your "knowing" is something else other than wishful thinking.

Can't. I have always just known that it is a true account an holy scripture. I also know it's not my job to convince anyone else.

 

Sorry to disappoint and not offer up some long explanation.

[Uncle Dale]

Yes if you actively promote that view.  The Church has a duty to protect the integrity of its teachings.

 

 

And yet -- throughout history we can find glaring examples where

the beliefs promoted by church leaders have been wrong, and

would have been better left undefended.

 

For centuries the Roman Catholic Church justified its civil

authority (where it could be exercised, such as in the Papal States)

based upon the bogus "Donation of Constantine."

 

Had you asked loyal members of the RCC a couple of centuries

ago, if any pope or cardinal could possibly deny the authority of

that important document, they would have replied: "Of course not.

It is essential to Church doctrine and Church governance. It is

unthinkable that even the lowliest, ignorant priest would ever

disbelieve one of the Church's foundational cornerstones. The 

has a duty to protect the integrity of its teachings..."

 

And yet -- today -- there is a Pope in Rome who does not believe

in the authenticity of that "essential" Church teaching of the past.

 

Things change. Sometimes during the course of a single life-time,

and in other situations, during the timespan of centuries.

 

A thought to keep in mind.

 

UD

Edited June 11, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[thesometimesaint]

And yet -- throughout history we can find glaring examples where

the beliefs promoted by church leaders have been wrong, and

would have been better left undefended.

 

For centuries the Roman Catholic Church justified its civil

authority (where it could be exercised, such as in the Papal States)

based upon the bogus "Donation of Constantine."

 

Had you asked loyal members of the RCC a couple of centuries

ago, if any pope or cardinal could possibly deny the authority of

that important document, they would have replied: "Of course not.

It is essential to Church doctrine and Church governance. It is

unthinkable that even the lowliest, ignorant priest would ever

disbelieve one of the Church's foundational cornerstones. The 

has a duty to protect the integrity of its teachings..."

 

And yet -- today -- there is a Pope in Rome who does not believe

in the authenticity of that "essential" Church teaching of the past.

 

Things change. Sometimes during the course of a single life-time,

and in other situations, during the timespan of centuries.

 

A thought to keep in mind.

 

UD

 

The LDS allow for change. We even have an established process for it. Though I don't foresee any change to the Truth Claims of the Church in regards to the Book of Mormon.

 

[Uncle Dale]

...

When Joseph Smith used the word "corn" in the BofM we do not know if he meant maize or wheat or barley.

...

 

 

I suppose that stance would be easier to defend if "corn" did

not appear in the same paragraphs as those cereal crops, 

giving us the impression it was something else --- or, if the

word appeared as a Nephite crop, and maize was mentioned

as a Lamanite crop.

 

In such situations, the simplest answer is generally the correct one.

When the translator of the Book of Mormon dictated the word "corn"

to his scribe, he had in mind the sandy, yellow stuff that Ma cooked

up into johnny cake and cornmeal mush.

 

But, suppose the Nephites NEVER raised nor tasted maize. Suppose

it was as forbidden to them as peccary-chops and bacon.

 

Were that the case, we might expect to discover some tracts of

arable land in the Americas that accumulated no wind-blown 

fossil maize pollen in their soil strata. We might expect to be able

to dig down through annual mud deposits at the bottoms of

ancient lakes in such areas, and find stretches of time in which

no maize pollen was deposited (or, very little, if the Lamanite

farmers in the next valley were growing some corn there).

 

But -- I don't think that has been the case. Excavations and

analysis of vast areas of the Americas pretty well document

the development and spread of corn from origins in or near

the Valley of Mexico.

 

If the Nephites had vast fields of wheat, oats, barley and rye,

we might expect to find some of THAT pollen prior to Columbus

coming over from Europe and Old World varieties of those

staple crops being first introduced.

 

But -- that is not what discovery throughout the Americas indicates.

Maybe Nephite "wheat" was merely "wild rice," and Nephite "oats"

was actually grass seed, and Nephite "barley" was nothing but a

sparsely distributed wild, very distant relative to Old World

cultivated barley.

 

Maybe.

 

But, even if we try to argue and defend that point; we'll come off

looking silly if we profess that Nephites never tasted popcorn, nor

roasted some corn-on-the-cob to go along with their Thanksgiving

turkey and pumpkin pie.

 

 

UD

ps -- most of what passes for pumpkin filling in November pies is

merely the squash Aztecs, Iroquois, and Mohawks used to raise

and consume

[Stargazer]

Well, fundamentalism is, by definition, the belief in a strict/literal interpretation of scripture. Your insistence that the record should be taken strictly at face value (a very modern way of looking at scripture, by the way) is definitely fundamentalist. And while it's true that in polls most members of the church hold similar views to those in other fundamentalist faiths (Evangelicals, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc), I would argue that the founding philosophies of Mormonism allow for alternatives to the fundamentalist approach. Specifically, the idea that truth can come from any source, and should be accepted. That's the beauty of Mormonism right there. 

 

Well, I said I was going to leave this alone, but....  I can't.  Call me out, I'm a backslider.

 

I largely don't care whether a given book in the Bible, or biblical story, literally happened the way it said it did in the Bible.  Did the sun and moon REALLY stand still in the sky during that battle?  First of all, I don't care, secondly, I don't believe it's possible, and third, whether they did stand still in the sky or not does not affect the message of the Bible, or of the principle embodied in the Book of Joshua (if that's where it happened, which I am not sure of at the moment).  Did Moses REALLY cause the entire Red Sea to be held back for the Israelites to cross and then close on Pharoah's army once they got across?  I don't care, I think the principles of hydrodynamics make it rather unlikely, and whether it happened or not does not make the Bible true or false. 

 

Much of what we read concerning those really outstanding miracles in the Bible seem more figurative than literal.  But there are some which are absolutely necessary, and if they're not literally true, then fundamentals are utterly broken.  The most prominent one of these is the Resurrection of Christ.  Lesser in prominence but still vitally important are the miracles of healing, the miracles of feeding, and the miracles of the raising of the dead.  These MUST be literally true.  But the parables do not necessarily have to have described real events. 

 

I am actually not denying that there is a fundamentalist point of view that requires everything in the Bible to be interpreted literally, including creation ex nihilo within six 24-hour days.  There is definitely such a view.  But the Bible does not stand or fall based upon that view, so the fundie POV is irrelevant, except to the fundies. 

 

On the other hand, if the Nephites never actually existed, then Moroni was a fictitious person, and fictitious persons cannot enter the real world (which is why I brought up Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny).  Therefore, if the Nephites never actually existed, then Joseph Smith was lying about the Book of Mormon, and it follows that he was lying about the First Vision as well.  This makes the Church very much a false religion.  Thus the Church lives or dies based on the reality of the Book of Mormon.

 

It is not fundamentalism to insist that the Book of Mormon describe real events involving real people.  It is utterly necessary. 

Edited June 12, 2015 by Stargazer

[bcuzbcuz]

When a source provides information one must be careful to not let a prejudice provide more or less importance than the information is worth.

Point well taken. But the ambiguity of the usage of the word "corn" still exists because the word "corn" is also used in the Bible (102 times in 94 verses in the KJV), when it absolutely, could not, in any way possible, mean "maize".

[Uncle Dale]

 

...in the KJV), when it absolutely, could not, in any way possible, mean "maize".

 

Of course, in the days of King James' scriptural translators, maize had

already been introduced into Europe. So (even with the traditional "corn"

applying to field cereal crops) probably even King James himself knew 

what maize was.

 

The more interesting question is -- whether or not inhabitants of the Ancient

Near East (such as Israelites, Arabs, Egyptians, etc.) would have known maize?

 

When Portuguese sailors first traveled far south along the coast of Africa

(and before rounding "the Horn") they discovered maize crops growing in

those tropical climes. Evidently nobody thought to gather up a few bushels

and take them back to Lisbon for experimental planting.

 

But the maize was there. Africa is a big place and its nearest approach to

a spot where Israelites lived, would have been the Nile delta (or Ethiopia,

back in the days of the famous Queen of Sheba). So, Israelite maize looks

rather unlikely.

 

Still, some time after Solomon's reign, there were Israelites living in what

is now Ethiopia and Yemen -- so, what does that have to do with maize? 

The maize of coastal Angola did not arrive there by chance. Nor was it

brought across the continent from some hidden inland farmlands. It

came by ship -- from the eastern side of "the Horn" -- where the sailors

of Portugal probably also found it in Mozambique. At least both places 

seem to have maize at a very early date.

 

But, again, what has this to do with Israelites?

 

The answer may well be that maize also had an early presence in

Ethiopia and Yemen, just as it did in coastal southern Africa. The

same developed maize that originated in the Valley of Mexico.

 

How so?

 

We don't know, but evidence of maize can be found in Southeast

Asia -- and, more famously -- depicted in stone carvings in Hindu

temples, about half-way between Malaya and Yemen. Somehow,

the stuff made it across the Pacific, into India, and past the Indian

Ocean to Africa. Carried thither by... whom? Perhaps by the

pre-Islamic ancestors of Sinbad the Sailor, I suppose.

 

"Still no maize in Jerusalem" -- I hear folks saying. But we don't

know that for certain. Just like the Hindu stone-work, there are

Knights Templar carvings of maize in Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland.

Brought thither by.... whom? Portuguese sailors? Crusaders

who ventured as far afield as Ethiopia? Arab traders conveying

exotic stuff from India? The diggers of the Oak Island Money Pit,

returning to Europe, after hiding the Holy Grail?

 

Take your pick.

 

But Lehite maize, brought from Jerusalem has rather more evidence

for its ancient existence than does Lehite wheat, planted in America.

 

And, as King James' scholars are all dead now -- we can't ask them

what "corn" is supposed to mean, now can we?

 

UD

Edited June 13, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Stargazer]

And, as King James' scholars are all dead now -- we can't ask them

what "corn" is supposed to mean, now can we?

UD

We don't need to. In British English, even and especially in KJV times, "Corn" was a generic term for cereal grain. It meant wheat, barley, rye, and so on. It is still used in that way. In the early 19th Century Parliament passes the first of the Corn Laws, which didn't have anything to do with Maize, but referred to the then common cereal grains (and the importation thereof).

English being a Germanic language, we can examine German for cognates, such as das Korn, which refers to the plants known as true grasses, and especially their seeds. A German farmer who plants wheat or barley may talk about their seeds as Körner. In German there is no confusion like there is between Corn and Corn, because Maize is exclusively known as Mais. And popcorn is called Popmais.

So you can be sure that when the KJV talks about corn, it is most certainly NOT talking about maize, which may have been known, but at that point in history had not been imported into Europe in any great quantity.

You have some interesting claims about maize growing outside the Americas prior to Columbus. I've read somewhat about Maize, but this is something I've never read before. Specifically, you wrote:

When Portuguese sailors first traveled far south along the coast of Africa (and before rounding "the Horn") they discovered maize crops growing in

those tropical climes. Evidently nobody thought to gather up a few bushels and take them back to Lisbon for experimental planting.

What "Horn" are you talking about, first of all? The cape at the southern end of Africa? That's the Cape of Good Hope. If you "round the horn", you are rounding the cape at the southern end of South America. A simple mistake, I believe?

Whatever, but to the best of my knowledge, maize was domesticated only once, in southern Mexico 9,000 years ago, and did not find its way out of the Americas until the 15th and 16th Centuries. If maize was being cultivated on the southwest coast of Africa at the time Vasco da Gama was exploring southern Africa (in 1497), that is a significant deviation from all the history of this grain which I have read.

I don't know why you think maize is important in this context, but I am going to have to issue you a CFR on maize being cultivated in Africa and Southeast Asia well before the Spanish Conquistadors conquered the maize-growing regions of Central and South America. I'm especially interested in the Hindu carvings of maize the were carved presumably centuries before Columbus. You are positing a rather healthy trading system between Asia and America that I don't think actually existed -- with some one-off exceptions, perhaps. Certain not enough to trade in cereal grains.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Stargazer

[HappyJackWagon]

Well, I said I was going to leave this alone, but....  I can't.  Call me out, I'm a backslider.

 

I largely don't care whether a given book in the Bible, or biblical story, literally happened the way it said it did in the Bible.  Did the sun and moon REALLY stand still in the sky during that battle?  First of all, I don't care, secondly, I don't believe it's possible, and third, whether they did stand still in the sky or not does not affect the message of the Bible, or of the principle embodied in the Book of Joshua (if that's where it happened, which I am not sure of at the moment).  Did Moses REALLY cause the entire Red Sea to be held back for the Israelites to cross and then close on Pharoah's army once they got across?  I don't care, I think the principles of hydrodynamics make it rather unlikely, and whether it happened or not does not make the Bible true or false. 

 

Much of what we read concerning those really outstanding miracles in the Bible seem more figurative than literal.  But there are some which are absolutely necessary, and if they're not literally true, then fundamentals are utterly broken.  The most prominent one of these is the Resurrection of Christ.  Lesser in prominence but still vitally important are the miracles of healing, the miracles of feeding, and the miracles of the raising of the dead.  These MUST be literally true.  But the parables do not necessarily have to have described real events. 

 

I am actually not denying that there is a fundamentalist point of view that requires everything in the Bible to be interpreted literally, including creation ex nihilo within six 24-hour days.  There is definitely such a view.  But the Bible does not stand or fall based upon that view, so the fundie POV is irrelevant, except to the fundies. 

 

On the other hand, if the Nephites never actually existed, then Moroni was a fictitious person, and fictitious persons cannot enter the real world (which is why I brought up Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny).  Therefore, if the Nephites never actually existed, then Joseph Smith was lying about the Book of Mormon, and it follows that he was lying about the First Vision as well.  This makes the Church very much a false religion.  Thus the Church lives or dies based on the reality of the Book of Mormon.

 

It is not fundamentalism to insist that the Book of Mormon describe real events involving real people.  It is utterly necessary. 

Excellent post, Stargazer! I enjoyed it. Yet I'm a bit perplexed

 

You make a great argument against a fundamentalist view of the bible but then completely reverse course for the BoM.

 

Essentially the BoM MUST be true and historical because otherwise Joseph Smith would be a liar which would call into question all of the truth claims of the church. In a black and white, fundamentalist paradigm this would be correct. This is circular logic. The BoM must be true because the church is true and I know the church is true because of the BoM. To allow for the possibility that the BoM isn't historical shakes the foundation of a testimony in the church (not Christ- but the church).

 

If I'm understanding you correctly the only reason the BoM would absolutely need to be historical is because JS claimed it to be and claimed visions of BoM characters. He also claimed visions of Bible characters (Elijah and Elias [same person but whatever], moses, peter james and john, etc) so it would seem essential for the Bible to also be historical. 

[thesometimesaint]

Excellent post, Stargazer! I enjoyed it. Yet I'm a bit perplexed

 

You make a great argument against a fundamentalist view of the bible but then completely reverse course for the BoM.

 

Essentially the BoM MUST be true and historical because otherwise Joseph Smith would be a liar which would call into question all of the truth claims of the church. In a black and white, fundamentalist paradigm this would be correct. This is circular logic. The BoM must be true because the church is true and I know the church is true because of the BoM. To allow for the possibility that the BoM isn't historical shakes the foundation of a testimony in the church (not Christ- but the church).

 

If I'm understanding you correctly the only reason the BoM would absolutely need to be historical is because JS claimed it to be and claimed visions of BoM characters. He also claimed visions of Bible characters (Elijah and Elias [same person but whatever], moses, peter james and john, etc) so it would seem essential for the Bible to also be historical. 

 

With the Bible I think its been pretty well established that a Yeshua bar Yosef existed some 2000 years ago, but not conclusively. Whether he was the Son of God, the Christ, is a matter of faith in the testimonies of Peter, James, John, etc.. With the Book of Mormon we have the testimonies of Joseph Smith, the 3 and the 8 witnesses in the beginnings of the book. Whether you believe them or not is up to you.

[rodheadlee]

Point well taken. But the ambiguity of the usage of the word "corn" still exists because the word "corn" is also used in the Bible (102 times in 94 verses in the KJV), when it absolutely, could not, in any way possible, mean "maize".

Corn and maize are interchangeable in Mexico, Panama, Costa Rica, El Salvador. If you order a corn tortilla for your taco they will certainly bring you a taco with a maize tortilla from local shop. There is no distinction between the 2 words, present day.

[Robert F. Smith]

I do not think so. To many improbable situations and logical errors to make it historically factual.

Yeh, and as Sterling McMurrin said: “you don’t get books from angels and translate them by miracles; it is just that simple.” – Sterling McMurrin, “An Interview with Sterling McMurrin,” interview by Blake Ostler, Dialogue 17/1 (1984):25.

 

The problem with that is that it begs the question:  Can you demonstrate your assertion?

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

Among the RLDS/CoC, President W. Wallace Smith was the first member

of the First Presidency to "disbelieve" in Nephites -- followed by numerous

stake presidents, apostles, seventies and high priests in elevated callings.

 

I'd say that, c. 1960, belief in Nephites was removed from the "worthiness"

estimation of Reorganized Latter Day Saints' being considered for high

offices and important callings.

 

Perhaps B. H. Roberts, Apostle Talmadge and other LDS leaders stopped

believing and still magnified their callings. But, I'm not certain of that.

 

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

Although it is true that RLDS graduates of the St. Paul School of Theology (Methodist) who staffed the executive offices at RLDS headquarters (the Auditorium) during the post-W W. II era did adopt a number of Protestant views, and became ashamed of their own Latter Day Saint heritage, it is also true that they were generally very poorly informed on LDS history in general and on LDS theology in particular.  The G.I. Bill helped them jettison their Restoration distinctives, and you can see the result.  It was predictable.

 

At the same time, there is no evidence whatever that Roberts, Talmage, or other LDS leaders, took any similar path.  Just the opposite was the case.

 

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

 

I'd guess that the Reorganized LDS and their CoC

successors have made the correct decision, when

it comes to ancient Israelite-American anthropology.

 

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

I lived in Independence for 7 years, knew the executive staff at the Auditorium, and attended JWHA and MHA meetings, and never met any RLDS scholars who knew anything about ancient Israelite or American anthropology.  Wayne Ham's official position paper on the Book of Mormon was shallow and uninformed, although he was himself one of the nicest people I have ever met.

[Stargazer]

Excellent post, Stargazer! I enjoyed it. Yet I'm a bit perplexed

 

You make a great argument against a fundamentalist view of the bible but then completely reverse course for the BoM.

 

Essentially the BoM MUST be true and historical because otherwise Joseph Smith would be a liar which would call into question all of the truth claims of the church. In a black and white, fundamentalist paradigm this would be correct. This is circular logic. The BoM must be true because the church is true and I know the church is true because of the BoM. To allow for the possibility that the BoM isn't historical shakes the foundation of a testimony in the church (not Christ- but the church).

 

If I'm understanding you correctly the only reason the BoM would absolutely need to be historical is because JS claimed it to be and claimed visions of BoM characters. He also claimed visions of Bible characters (Elijah and Elias [same person but whatever], moses, peter james and john, etc) so it would seem essential for the Bible to also be historical. 

 

Well, yes.  You seem to understand what I have presented (one of the few, probably, even my own wife is sometimes perplexed by what I spout).  Except for one thing, and that is the circularity.  It's not circular; it's linear.  It starts with the Book of Mormon and moves directly to the Church by way of Joseph Smith.  It does not circle back to the Book of Mormon.  The Church stands or falls on Joseph Smith, who stands or falls on the Book of Mormon.  I suppose that the Book of Mormon could be like the book of Job, i.e. a divine fiction involving a person whose historicity is completely beside the point, or more to the point, part of the frame story that teaches vital lessons. 

 

But I don't see how the Book of Mormon could be a divine fiction like Job, because, well, Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny.  I cannot see God sending a fictitious person, Moroni, all to reveal the resting place of an artifact that was actually created by God Himself and planted probably five minutes before Joseph arrived at the site, and containing lie upon lie about people who never existed, who participated in events which never happened, and featuring a crown jewel narrative of the visit of the Son of God to a place populated by phantasms going through the motions of being exhilarated by a faux divine visitation, being healed of nonexistent illnesses and injuries, and so on.

 

Do you believe God utters such implacable prevarications?  I don't.

 

I'm a convert, not a BIC.  My testimony of the Church stemmed initially from the testimony of the spirit guiding me quietly and definitely in the path which led into the Church, and I cannot for a moment deny that path and the testimony of the Spirit.  But the Book of Mormon actually overshadows even that.

 

In short, the Book of Mormon is either true, in the way I've described, or Joseph Smith was a damnable liar and the Church he founded is a human organization with no divine authority nor power.  It all works together, actually. 

 

Editing to add: No, I am not a fundamentalist with respect to the Bible, for the simple reason that it's origin and method of transmission places far too many human hands between first setting down (or first telling), and the form it takes on a modern printing press (or device of your choice).  The Bible has endured an enormously long and complicated chain of custody, marked by scribal errors, errant translations, questionable interpolations by the hand of man, and possible fraud.  The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, has an astonishingly short path of transmission, compared to the Bible, and an astonishingly close relationship to those who first wrote it down and us.  Nephi wrote "I was born of goodly parents", and that writing was filtered by human hands only twice: once through Mormon, and once through Joseph Smith.  And that final filter was assisted by divine inspiration and revelation.  How could you NOT take the Book of Mormon fundamentally?  Besides the fact that there is much in the Bible which is intentionally figurative, you better come to it with a large grain of salt sometimes.  About the only figurative thing in the Book of Mormon is Jacob 5.  The rest is cold, hard, narration of facts and doctrine.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Stargazer

[ERayR]

Well, yes.  You seem to understand what I have presented (one of the few, probably, even my own wife is sometimes perplexed by what I spout).  Except for one thing, and that is the circularity.  It's not circular; it's linear.  It starts with the Book of Mormon and moves directly to the Church by way of Joseph Smith.  It does not circle back to the Book of Mormon.  The Church stands or falls on Joseph Smith, who stands or falls on the Book of Mormon.  I suppose that the Book of Mormon could be like the book of Job, i.e. a divine fiction involving a person whose historicity is completely beside the point, or more to the point, part of the frame story that teaches vital lessons. 

 

But I don't see how the Book of Mormon could be a divine fiction like Job, because, well, Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny.  I cannot see God sending a fictitious person, Moroni, all to reveal the resting place of an artifact that was actually created by God Himself and planted probably five minutes before Joseph arrived at the site, and containing lie upon lie about people who never existed, who participated in events which never happened, and featuring a crown jewel narrative of the visit of the Son of God to a place populated by phantasms going through the motions of being exhilarated by a faux divine visitation, being healed of nonexistent illnesses and injuries, and so on.

 

Do you believe God utters such implacable prevarications?  I don't.

 

I'm a convert, not a BIC.  My testimony of the Church stemmed initially from the testimony of the spirit guiding me quietly and definitely in the path which led into the Church, and I cannot for a moment deny that path and the testimony of the Spirit.  But the Book of Mormon actually overshadows even that.

 

In short, the Book of Mormon is either true, in the way I've described, or Joseph Smith was a damnable liar and the Church he founded is a human organization with no divine authority nor power.  It all works together, actually. 

 

Editing to add: No, I am not a fundamentalist with respect to the Bible, for the simple reason that it's origin and method of transmission places far too many human hands between first setting down (or first telling), and the form it takes on a modern printing press (or device of your choice).  The Bible has endured an enormously long and complicated chain of custody, marked by scribal errors, errant translations, questionable interpolations by the hand of man, and possible fraud.  The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, has an astonishingly short path of transmission, compared to the Bible, and an astonishingly close relationship to those who first wrote it down and us.  Nephi wrote "I was born of goodly parents", and that writing was filtered by human hands only twice: once through Mormon, and once through Joseph Smith.  And that final filter was assisted by divine inspiration and revelation.  How could you NOT take the Book of Mormon fundamentally?  Besides the fact that there is much in the Bible which is intentionally figurative, you better come to it with a large grain of salt sometimes.  About the only figurative thing in the Book of Mormon is Jacob 5.  The rest is cold, hard, narration of facts and doctrine.

 

When you nail it you really nail it.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

...................................................................................... About the only figurative thing in the Book of Mormon is Jacob 5.  The rest is cold, hard, narration of facts and doctrine.

Take a gander at Alma 32.  How do you feel about that?

 

Or maybe I Nephi 8 - 14.  How about those visions?  What do they mean?

[Stargazer]

Take a gander at Alma 32.  How do you feel about that?

 

Or maybe I Nephi 8 - 14.  How about those visions?  What do they mean?

 

OK, OK.  Good points, but don't get overzealous.

 

Jacob 5 stands out to me as a beautifully crafted allegory, dealing with the figure of the Lehites being moved to another place where they are to be husbanded separately, and the meaning and purport is difficult to tease out of it.  But Alma 32, for all its figurative seed-planting, is a hard-hitting and in-your-face exhortation to faith.  It's real to me, whereas Jacob 5 is somewhat mystical. 

 

But on the other hand, in the Book of Mormon all visions are just as tangible for most purposes as a description of a battle.  Laman and Lemuel ask Nephi what did our father mean? but that's because they are two of the greatest blockheads in history.  Lehi's visions are pure information and ready to kick you butt.  And Nephi's addendum and supplement is enough to make you cry for gratitude that God would tell a fallen man such beautiful things.  Nephi claims that his soul delights in plainness, and the Book of Mormon, for all that he was only the very first in a long line of co-writers, bears him out wonderfully.