Bobbieaware Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 I can't imagine why God would care whether or not we think a particular book is historical.How about because God is the living embodiment of truth and for that reason truth and truthfulness are of utmost importance to him? How about because a book of fiction pawned off as a true account of real people would violate the holy sensibilities of a God who is the embodiment of all truth? How because lies, deceit and duplicity are anathema to a real God of real truth who lives in a real tangible body? Just because you perceive life and existence to be an ethereal dreamworld doesn't mean we are actually living in an amorphous world of dreams where reality and fantasy are one and the same. How about because most Latter-day Saints believe the flowing verses of scripture mean precisely what they say?Doctrine and Covenants 93:2626 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;John 8:3232 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.2 Corinthians 13:88 For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.John 17:1717 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.Doctrine and Covenants 84:4545 For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.Ether 3:1212 And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, AND CANST NOT LIE. 1
sethpayne Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 How about because God is the living embodiment of truth and for that reason truth and truthfulness are of utmost importance to him? How about because a book of fiction pawned off as a true account of real people would violate the holy sensibilities of a God who is the embodiment of all truth? How because lies, deceit and duplicity are anathema to a real God of real truth who lives in a real tangible body? Just because you perceive life and existence to be an ethereal dreamworld doesn't mean we are actually living in an amorphous world of dreams where reality and fantasy are one and the same. How about because most Latter-day Saints believe the flowing verses of scripture mean precisely what they say? Do you consider the Book of Deuteronomy a fraud and a lie? Moses didn't write it. It was written -- or perhaps heavily edited/redacted -- by later scribes to reflect later thinking that supported Josiah's claims. What about Isaiah? He almost certainly didn't write the later chapters. And yet they are attributed to him. BTW -- some of the most quoted Isaiah passages in the BOM come from those later chapters. Historicity has nothing to do with a dreamworld. Texts can, and do, have meaning well beyond their historicity. Most Eastern religious texts are not considered historical. Because the focus is on the moral lessons they teach. Whether or not such-and-such actually happened to the Buddha, for example, isn't really considered important because it makes no difference to the point of the text. But hey ... I agree with you. Viewing the BoM as ahistorical does present some challenges. But perhaps just like we admit Joseph may have been mistaken about some things (like the BoA, White Lamanites, etc...), perhaps something similar is at work with the BoM. But perhaps not. Either way, it makes no sense to condemn those who hold the BoM is ahistorical, or likely ahistorical. What matters is if these people are living according to the teachings of the Book. IMO, that's what God cares about. Not whether you believe X or Y. But how you develop Christlike qualities. 3
Gray Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) How about because God is the living embodiment of truth and for that reason truth and truthfulness are of utmost importance to him? How about because a book of fiction pawned off as a true account of real people would violate the holy sensibilities of a God who is the embodiment of all truth? How because lies, deceit and duplicity are anathema to a real God of real truth who lives in a real tangible body? Just because you perceive life and existence to be an ethereal dreamworld doesn't mean we are actually living in an amorphous world of dreams where reality and fantasy are one and the same. How about because most Latter-day Saints believe the flowing verses of scripture mean precisely what they say?Doctrine and Covenants 93:2626 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;John 8:3232 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.2 Corinthians 13:88 For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.John 17:1717 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.Doctrine and Covenants 84:4545 For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.Ether 3:1212 And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, AND CANST NOT LIE. So if I erroneously believe in the lost civilization of Atlantis, my salvation might be at stake? Or likewise if I believe there were no historical Huttites, I run the risk of damnation? This doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. It's like that dream of going to take a test in your underwear, and you have no idea what you're going to be tested on before hand. I'd think that if there was a test it would be about our character, not about our knowledge of useless trivia. Edited June 29, 2015 by Gray
Mormonmaniac Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Probably most people haven't the time or inclination to consider the geographical theories applied to the BofM, and most converts accept the LDS faith by the power of the Holy Spirit. I see nothing at all wrong with that. However, are you saying that those who do address such factual questions (pro or con) are showing bad manners, asking unanswerable questions, or are dealing heresy? What is this "disservice" thing that has you in a spin? Its all the assumptions, guesswork, bad calculations, etc, shoved together to shoehorn a particular theory on geography that does the disservice. I get particularly annoyed at the strict limited meso-american theories because they go way overboard on the assumptions and guesswork and then try to tie it in with scientific reasoning to make it fit, and then, they go on to snub everyone else as if they are idiots or unlearned on the matter who do not agree with their theory. The Book of Mormon, as translated by Joseph Smith paints a much bigger and much broader picture than some small limited meso-american model. It thus does a great disservice to the Book of Mormon to put such extreme limits on the ancients spoken of in the BoM.
tagriffy Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Yes... all sorts of things get left off the table or put on, depending on one's theoretical approach. But something else happens when it comes time to consider which paradigm is better? That means everything everyone has goes up on a much bigger arena than any single table holds. I could imagine that rather than one restaurant with one chef, one table, and one menu, I get to consider the offerings of a noisy competitive marketplace. That means that theoretical presumptions are admitted to be self-referential, and should not be used to decide which paradigm is better. Orthodoxy or popularity or group or intellectual fashion police approval is not enough. The need to face real competition challenges uncritical presumption.Which is approach most testable, accurate, comprehensive and coherent? Which is the most fruitful? Which is simplest and most appealing? Which is the promising and worth committing to for future efforts in dealing with open questions? Which is better? Which problems are more signifant to have solved? And even those questions will raise new questions. Comprehensive and coherent in what respect? Fruitful in what way? Most appealing to whom? Given the theoretical presumptions are self-referential, how do we decide which is more promising or which problems are more significant? The problem before us is far more complicated than figuring out which restaurant is better. Restaurants of whatever type pretty much operate the same way, which means we already have common categories to work with. We're not asking which is best between a full-service restaurant, a fast food joint, and a buffet. It is more like we are trying to determine whether a restaurant is better than a bank. While there are certain parallels with the evolution/creationist debate, even that doesn't really capture what is going on with the Book of Mormon debate. At least evolutionists and creationists are looking at the same rock. With the Book of Mormon, historicists and environmentalists aren't really looking at the same evidence. Indeed, in some ways they can't. I'm saying that when I read Brodie, for instance, I find her 19th Century composition by a con man who meant well theory does not explain a great many things that I find impressive. Her paradigm is not "Better" in terms of a specific set of values and a wide range of evidence. Whereas in my case, Brodie opened up a new vista. I was already working my way through a faith crisis sparked by having to give up on biblical inerrancy. Raymond Brown's Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible was indispensable in helping me through that crisis (later on I would really come to appreciate him as a biblical scholar). So when I read Brodie, I saw Joseph Smith doing what prophets do. Since then things have only deepened. I've evolved beyond Brodie, but at least in terms of what I was given before, her paradigm did turn out to be better. I'm saying that when I read American Apocrypha or New Approaches, or Palmer or Coe, or Dehlin, that I find that their approaches do not address, explain, or account for a great many things that are important to me. I have to admit a certain amount of disappointment with American Apocrypha. For me, New Approaches was a good primer to work forward from. Yes, most of the essays were about establishing the Book of Mormon is of modern origin, but a couple of them moved on toward interpretation. By the time American Apocrypha came out, I was asking different questions. And with the exception of the Staker and Price essays, those questions weren't being raised, let alone explored. My question wasn't whether the variant readings of Isaiah are ancient. My question was what was Joseph trying to say through the variant readings. My question wasn't whether anti-Masonic rhetoric was utilized in the Book of Mormon; it was about how that rhetoric was used and the way it functioned in the text. Don't even get me started on Palmer. I could grouse about him for days. Palmer would basically give up on Joseph Smith in light of a 19th century Book of Mormon. By way of contrast, I double down on him. Coe, like New Approaches, was in fine in his place but now I'm moving on to other questions. I'm not really familiar with Dehlin's work on the Book of Mormon, so I can't say anything about it. I'm saying that when I consider Religious Studies approaches that, as a matter of social protocol, I should presume that it's rude to actually go around in polite company talking about historicity, when there is so much that could be said that does not offend people who find uncritical presumption of a 19th century origin to be a sufficient explanation of the Book of Mormon. It happens that I find their readings of the Book of Mormon suffer in comparison to those willing to take the text seriously enough to challenge it. Stendahl's reading of 3 Nephi is interesting, but is not better than Welch's and Anderson's and Nibley's an Kowallis's readings. I think a Religious Studies approach has the advantage that it will work both ways precisely because it brackets the issue of historicity. If those who presume a 19th century origin aren't offended, neither are those who presume an ancient origin. When you consider the target audience for Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels is largely composed of the latter, I seriously doubt BYU would have published something that is going to intentionally offend them. But you are right that such an approach will only take us so far.
Mormonmaniac Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) So biblical scholars have no more right than Book of Mormon scholars to map anything which has heretofore defied establishing the actual site? Are those sorts of things all just guesses and baseless assumptions? All scholars just egomanaical and self-assertive? No room for forensic evidence and debate? Scholars have their place. Its just that, as human nature shows itself, we are prone to mistake after mistake in getting history right from a purely scholarly angle. Perhaps one of the reasons God did use Joseph Smith as an unlearned boy to translate so that it wouldnt get "mans spin" on it to screw it up. We all learned native American history from the "scholars" in school. Not one, not even one of them, mention anything to do with the Book of Mormon and its inhabitants. So, either the scholars are right and the Book of Mormon is a complete fraud, or perhaps, the Book of Mormon really is an ancient history and scholars have been duped by their own faulty reasoning. My guess is that scholars place their own spin on just about everything and making history a sham. Edited June 29, 2015 by Mormonmaniac
tagriffy Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 How about because God is the living embodiment of truth and for that reason truth and truthfulness are of utmost importance to him? How about because a book of fiction pawned off as a true account of real people would violate the holy sensibilities of a God who is the embodiment of all truth? How because lies, deceit and duplicity are anathema to a real God of real truth who lives in a real tangible body? Just because you perceive life and existence to be an ethereal dreamworld doesn't mean we are actually living in an amorphous world of dreams where reality and fantasy are one and the same. How about because most Latter-day Saints believe the flowing verses of scripture mean precisely what they say? That already describes much of the Bible. And if the Bible, why not the Book of Mormon?
Robert F. Smith Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 I can't imagine why God would care whether or not we think a particular book is historical. Because it affects the way you approach its precepts (as fiction).Either the principles taught in it are good or they are not, whether or not Nephites existed So are all literary works reduced to the same test level? So that fiction by any author (C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, J.K. Rowling, Homer, et al.) should be measured by whether the principles taught are good or not? Is whether they are fact or fiction then irrelevant in every way? Or does it matter sometimes? I had at first thought that you, Gray, were going for the moral high ground in suggesting that God was less interested in one's intellectual stance, than on whether you clothed the naked, fed the hungry, visited the orphan and widow, etc. I'd give a rep point for that approach.
Bobbieaware Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Do you consider the Book of Deuteronomy a fraud and a lie? Moses didn't write it. It was written -- or perhaps heavily edited/redacted -- by later scribes to reflect later thinking that supported Josiah's claims. What about Isaiah? He almost certainly didn't write the later chapters. And yet they are attributed to him. BTW -- some of the most quoted Isaiah passages in the BOM come from those later chapters. Historicity has nothing to do with a dreamworld. Texts can, and do, have meaning well beyond their historicity. Most Eastern religious texts are not considered historical. Because the focus is on the moral lessons they teach. Whether or not such-and-such actually happened to the Buddha, for example, isn't really considered important because it makes no difference to the point of the text. But hey ... I agree with you. Viewing the BoM as ahistorical does present some challenges. But perhaps just like we admit Joseph may have been mistaken about some things (like the BoA, White Lamanites, etc...), perhaps something similar is at work with the BoM. But perhaps not. Either way, it makes no sense to condemn those who hold the BoM is ahistorical, or likely ahistorical. What matters is if these people are living according to the teachings of the Book. IMO, that's what God cares about. Not whether you believe X or Y. But how you develop Christlike qualities.So can a member of the Church believe Jesus Christ is only a fictional character who never really existed -- and therefore believe he never went through an atoning sacrifice and was never raised from the dead to immortal glory at the Father's right hand -- and still be considered a faithful, testimony-bearing member of the Church? It doesn't matter if a member believes there never really was a Son of God who was born in Bethlehem so long as that member abides by the teachings and precepts someone put into a fictional character's mouth? Really? So I guess we really are saved by works and not by grace: Who needs a Savior and an infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice when all that's necessary is living by teachings that sound good and noble? No need for an atoning sacrifice in order to be forgiven; no need for an atoning sacrifice in order to receive the spiritual gifts that flow from a very real divine personage known as the Holy Ghost as long as one is a "good person." But I will concede it's better for someone to follow the wholesome teachings of an imaginary Savior than it is to not follow the laws of God at all. At least it's a place to start.Now as far as the Book of Mormon is concerned: It occupies a unique position when compared to the other books you have mentioned. That's why our 8th Article of Faith says, "we believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God," but the same Article of Faith says, "we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." In addition, we also have the word of the Lord in the Doctrine and Covenants testifying that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God and not by earthly means. The Bbok of Mormon came to us though living prophets, then through inspired prophet-editors, then through an inspired modern prophet who translated the plates by means of the all-searching power of God. The Spirit has taught me to have full confidence that the Book of Mormon speaks of real people and real events and that the translation is correct enough for even God to put his stamp of approval on it.I 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Its all the assumptions, guesswork, bad calculations, etc, shoved together to shoehorn a particular theory on geography that does the disservice. I get particularly annoyed at the strict limited meso-american theories because they go way overboard on the assumptions and guesswork and then try to tie it in with scientific reasoning to make it fit, and then, they go on to snub everyone else as if they are idiots or unlearned on the matter who do not agree with their theory. The Book of Mormon, as translated by Joseph Smith paints a much bigger and much broader picture than some small limited meso-american model. It thus does a great disservice to the Book of Mormon to put such extreme limits on the ancients spoken of in the BoM.And you see this as true across the board? So that all limited geography theorists made the limited assumption first and then tried to find facts which would justify the assumptions and guesswork? None of them could possibly have based their limited geography theory on scientific deduction or anthropological reality? No scholarly basis for any of it? Right? Are there any scholarly articles or books available which systematically argue that case? If it is all mere guesswork, it should be pretty easy to show the lack of evidence at each crucial point in the argument. The other problem is that you assert that the Book of Mormon "paints a much bigger and much broader picture than some small limited meso-american model. It thus does a great disservice to the Book of Mormon to put such extreme limits on the ancients spoken of in the BoM." Would you make the same assertion about the even bigger Bible? Why do we put such extreme limits on the geography of biblical events? Because we already know the geographical context. That is the only apparent reason. Otherwise we could just as well give the Bible a continental canvas. I lived and walked in the Holy Land for four years, and it doesn't seem so small when experienced firsthand. Perhaps a proper sense of perspective is needed. 3
tagriffy Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 So are all literary works reduced to the same test level? So that fiction by any author (C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, J.K. Rowling, Homer, et al.) should be measured by whether the principles taught are good or not? Is whether they are fact or fiction then irrelevant in every way? Or does it matter sometimes? Well, the Prophet Joseph Smith did teach that we accept truth regardless of the source. Seriously, we do have a tendency to measure literary works by the principles they teach (or, at least what we think they teach), whether fact or fiction. Think of the counterfactual case. Does something being factual mean the principle being taught is good? Not necessarily. One can lie with statistics, but the statistics themselves are facts. This would suggest that in the pursuit of Truth, fact and fiction are mere tools used to communicate.
cinepro Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 I keep pondering the Book of Mormon and the message. It makes me marvel to think how an uneducated fanboys dictates a book that is internally consistent with itself and the Bible and teaches the redemption and atonement of man so clearly and powerfully unless it is what he claimed it was.And why would you be willing to go to your death if it wasn't true.What reasonable explanation is there for this marvelous book? How can it be anything other than what it claims? I recently heard the Book of Mormon described as "Biblical fan-fiction", so up-vote for the "fanboys" slip...
cinepro Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) I'm wondering how well the "creative remix" theory is going to fly when on the day of judgement God declares in the ears of all people that the Book of Mormon is precisely what it claims to be. It is so obvious to me that young Joseph Smith (and no one else, for that matter) could have produced the Book of Mormon without mighty help from heaven. One day this will be made perfectly clear to everyone, and there will be many in that day who will wonder how they could have been so blind as to be unable to see what is so obviously true. The coming forth of the Nook of Mormon is as great a miracle as the opening of the Red Sea or the raising of Lazarus from the dead. When it is read and understood by the power of the Spirit, it becomes as undeniable as is the blazing noonday summer sun that it is verily true. I have to admit that one of the weirdest traits attributed to God is that he thinks less of people who wait for good, solid evidence before believing something. I understand the whole story of "doubting Thomas", but when I imagine a harsh anti-Mormon standing before God and seeing everything in light of the new evidence and saying "Oh, now that you've explained it I fully believe in The Book of Mormon; the only reason I didn't is because of the very, very weak evidence we had in 1972." it would just seem odd for God (or anyone else) to judge such a person harshly. I would hope for the same compassion were I to one day stand before L. Ron Hubbard's immortal form and come to the full knowledge that he was right about everything by being shown new evidence. I would shrug my shoulders and say "Wow, the way this was presented in 2015 was really, really weird, but with this new evidence I now believe you 100%." There's nothing wrong with changing your judgement of something when the evidence also changes. Edited June 29, 2015 by cinepro 3
Robert F. Smith Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Scholars have their place. Its just that, as human nature shows itself, we are prone to mistake after mistake in getting history right from a purely scholarly angle.Humans are indeed fallible, but what you are saying here doesn't make any sense. Historians are part of a self-correcting, group endeavor. You make it sound like they get it all wrong all the time. Perhaps one of the reasons God did use Joseph Smith as an unlearned boy to translate so that it wouldnt get "mans spin" on it to screw it up. We all learned native American history from the "scholars" in school.You claim to have "learned native American history from 'scholars' in school." What school?Very few students in the USA ever learn Amerindian history from scholars. Only college training in anthropology provides that kind of scholarship. Very few people have any idea what that means. In California (where I studied anthropology) elementary and secondary students are introduced to a small amount of Amerindian material, and there are some excellent museums which show what life was like before the arrival of Columbus. However, visiting a museum, or reading a short passage about California Indians in a textbook does not constitute "scholarship." Not one, not even one of them, mention anything to do with the Book of Mormon and its inhabitants. So, either the scholars are right and the Book of Mormon is a complete fraud, or perhaps, the Book of Mormon really is an ancient history and scholars have been duped by their own faulty reasoning. My guess is that scholars place their own spin on just about everything and making history a sham.There is nothing wrong with the larger community of anthropologists. They are very smart. But almost none of them has any idea about the Book of Mormon, have not read it, and they do not concern themselves with it. Why would they? When the automatic assumption (without having studied it) is that the Book of Mormon is fiction, the die is cast from the outset. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Well, the Prophet Joseph Smith did teach that we accept truth regardless of the source. Seriously, we do have a tendency to measure literary works by the principles they teach (or, at least what we think they teach), whether fact or fiction. Think of the counterfactual case. Does something being factual mean the principle being taught is good? Not necessarily. One can lie with statistics, but the statistics themselves are facts. This would suggest that in the pursuit of Truth, fact and fiction are mere tools used to communicate.It might depend on the type of truth claim being made. If someone claims that Jesus died for our sins as the very Son of God, does it matter at all? If it is not true, then is somebody selling us snake oil? 1
Gray Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) So are all literary works reduced to the same test level? So that fiction by any author (C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, J.K. Rowling, Homer, et al.) should be measured by whether the principles taught are good or not? Is whether they are fact or fiction then irrelevant in every way? Or does it matter sometimes? I had at first thought that you, Gray, were going for the moral high ground in suggesting that God was less interested in one's intellectual stance, than on whether you clothed the naked, fed the hungry, visited the orphan and widow, etc. I'd give a rep point for that approach. Well, no, I wouldn't measure the quality of a literary work simply on whether or not it taught good principles. I would say its value to me as a spiritual text (apart from its literary value) would depend on what good principles I was able to glean from it. Some of that would of course be constrained by my own limitations. As far as whether or not the texts are fictional or not, no, to me it doesn't matter. But I don't think I have any literalist bones left in my body - I can certainly understand why some feel that spiritual texts should have some anchoring in real events. "I had at first thought that you, Gray, were going for the moral high ground in suggesting that God was less interested in one's intellectual stance, than on whether you clothed the naked, fed the hungry, visited the orphan and widow, etc. I'd give a rep point for that approach." I think that is consistent with my attitude, yes. I can't imagine why God might be interested in judging people based on our intellectual stances as opposed to how we treat our neighbor. The former strikes me as frivolous, the latter as immensely important. Edited June 29, 2015 by Gray 3
Popular Post mfbukowski Posted June 29, 2015 Popular Post Posted June 29, 2015 When I first got baptized, I had no doubt that the BOM was not historical. No way could it be, I thought. But it didn't matter one iota. Buddhism is not based on the historicity of their scriptures, it is based on the CONTENT. My life had been changed totally by studying philosophy, NONE of which was based on any of it being "historical". I left Catholicism as a young man because the philosophy didn't make sense to me. Historical "chain of priesthood from Peter though all the Popes?" I never ever bought that except perhaps as a child- my connection was with the Eucharist which I was convinced was the actual body Christ- when the philosophy behind that theory went, so did my belief in the RC Church. So my membership in the LDS way of life has always been based on testimony and the fact that I am totally convinced that the philosophy behind it is the best possible paradigm any human has ever created by inspiration or otherwise. The Book of Mormon is a phenomenal piece of scripture- and totally consistent with the rest of Mormon philosophy and the basis of most of the doctrines. The first time I read it I saw it as a total enigma. How could Joseph come up with a profound philosophy that totally anticipates postmodernism (Alma 32). William James, John Dewey, Michael Polyani, and therefore Kuhn and Rorty.?? How is that possible? How could Joseph answer questions raised by existentialism before they were even dreamed up? How could he know so much about Christianity and its problems and solve them, and turn 2000 years of confused theology on its head? A farmboy who lived about 100 miles from my birthplace? In my youth I knew old farmers in the area, born in the 1880's. Yes, they played with folk mythology, dousing and all the rest. Did they understand anything at all that Joseph "saw" instinctively? Of course not. So historicity was a non-issue for me from the beginning. Then I thought about it. I noticed it was incredibly important for many members of the church. I could not understand that on one level, but on another I could see the problem. If the gospel was not historical, it was not to be believed at all, or so they said. I looked at who believed in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I found many people I thought to be totally brilliant who believed. That did not make sense to me. No one outside the church believed that the BOM was historical. Yet all this totally brilliant people who understood the philosophy and knew far more than I did, believed in historicity. Why could they not see it?? Then suddenly I got it. Believing in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is actually a religious belief, that has nothing to do with the allegedly "impartial" analysis data. But guess what? There is no such thing as "impartial" analysis of data. Nietzsche coined the memorable statement "there are no facts, just interpretations". Using a religious filter (paradigm) is just as rationally permissible as using a scientific filter (paradigm). Both are perfectly rational, according to whom? Oh, just James. Dewey. Nietzsche, Michael Polyani, Kuhn (sort of) and Rorty, all the postmodernists and every philosopher (the majority) who believes in the deflationary theory of truth. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/ In other words, all my heros, not the least of which is Joseph himself. So guess what? I started reading more about the evidence for historicity and found a bunch. My paradigm had shifted. I was ready. It took me 36 years. I have no problem now with the idea that the BOM IS historical. 7
tagriffy Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 The other problem is that you assert that the Book of Mormon "paints a much bigger and much broader picture than some small limited meso-american model. It thus does a great disservice to the Book of Mormon to put such extreme limits on the ancients spoken of in the BoM." Would you make the same assertion about the even bigger Bible? Why do we put such extreme limits on the geography of biblical events? Because we already know the geographical context. That is the only apparent reason. Otherwise we could just as well give the Bible a continental canvas. I lived and walked in the Holy Land for four years, and it doesn't seem so small when experienced firsthand. Perhaps a proper sense of perspective is needed. On the other hand, one of the reasons we already know the geographical context is because Bible itself (basically) defines it in terms of real world geography. Genesis 15:18 may set ideal boundaries, but it does set boundaries. Even in the wider world of Paul's journeys, Acts gives identifiable reference points and therefore we don't speculate about him going to, say, China, in those journeys. If Acts just said Paul traveled "many days" north and then "many days" west, for all we would know he could have wound up in Germany via Russia. But with a few notable exceptions, that's all we get for measuring distances in the Book of Mormon. Until we nail down some of those locations in the real world, everything we might say about the land's size will necessarily be speculative.
mfbukowski Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Well, no, I wouldn't measure the quality of a literary work simply on whether or not it taught good principles. I would say its value to me as a spiritual text (apart from its literary value) would depend on what good principles I was able to glean from it. Some of that would of course be constrained by my own limitations. As far as whether or not the texts are fictional or not, no, to me it doesn't matter. But I don't think I have any literalist bones left in my body - I can certainly understand why some feel that spiritual texts should have some anchoring in real events. "I had at first thought that you, Gray, were going for the moral high ground in suggesting that God was less interested in one's intellectual stance, than on whether you clothed the naked, fed the hungry, visited the orphan and widow, etc. I'd give a rep point for that approach." I think that is consistent with my attitude, yes. I can't imagine why God might be interested in judging people based on our intellectual stances as opposed to how we treat our neighbor. The former strikes me as frivolous, the latter as immensely important. I am not one who goes to dictionaries to solve semantic problems "by definition". That is one ridiculous way to argue a point, in my opinion. But this word "fiction" in connection with the BOM really bothers me. I have NEVER considered it "fiction" even in my most anti-historic periods. I saw it as an inspired work, given to Joseph by God for our spiritual edification, which could not be proven to be historical or non-historical. But the word "fiction" never really applied as far as I was concerned. So I looked it up one minute ago just to see if I agreed with the dictionary. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, especially in prose form. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction. something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: Yep."Fiction" is not applicable at all. The worst I can imagine that I might have ever said about it was that "Joseph thought it was historical, but was mistaken" Even THAT is far from "fiction" 2
tagriffy Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 It might depend on the type of truth claim being made. If someone claims that Jesus died for our sins as the very Son of God, does it matter at all? If it is not true, then is somebody selling us snake oil? I agree it might depend on the type of truth claim being made. The second question is easier to answer than the first. Even if it is true, somebody might still use it to sell us snake oil. One need only look at the history of televangelism for proof of that. For the first question, let's go back to the general level and ask when does a truth claim become dependent on something being a fact and work with that a bit. A claim that X substance cures cancer would definitely depend on X substance curing cancer being a fact. The parable of the prodigal son doesn't depend the story being factual in the same way because enough of us have had the experience of being estranged and then reconciled with our parent(s)/child(ren) that we can identify with the truth that is being claimed of it. So, provisionally, let's say that a truth claim becomes depending on something being a fact when it matters that it is a fact. It seems to me that the next logical question is how do we know when it matters. This is where the type of truth claim being made comes into play. So far, I'm looking at the narrower the truth claim being made, the more likely it matters the truth claim depends on something being a fact. Likewise, the broader or more universal the truth claim, the less dependent it is on something being a fact. But my brain is starting to turn into mush from lack of sleep at this point. Let's see if we can prove some contraries here and see what shakes loose.
mfbukowski Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) I agree it might depend on the type of truth claim being made. The second question is easier to answer than the first. Even if it is true, somebody might still use it to sell us snake oil. One need only look at the history of televangelism for proof of that. For the first question, let's go back to the general level and ask when does a truth claim become dependent on something being a fact and work with that a bit. A claim that X substance cures cancer would definitely depend on X substance curing cancer being a fact. The parable of the prodigal son doesn't depend the story being factual in the same way because enough of us have had the experience of being estranged and then reconciled with our parent(s)/child(ren) that we can identify with the truth that is being claimed of it. So, provisionally, let's say that a truth claim becomes depending on something being a fact when it matters that it is a fact. It seems to me that the next logical question is how do we know when it matters. This is where the type of truth claim being made comes into play. So far, I'm looking at the narrower the truth claim being made, the more likely it matters the truth claim depends on something being a fact. Likewise, the broader or more universal the truth claim, the less dependent it is on something being a fact. But my brain is starting to turn into mush from lack of sleep at this point. Let's see if we can prove some contraries here and see what shakes loose.I suggest you read this and refute it somehow or show how it doesn't apply before you try to reinvent the wheel. Outside of religious universities, where heads seem to be firmly in the sand, this is pretty much the main view of truth, or is at least THE 800 pound gorilla in the room to at least be acknowledged. https://www.google.com/search?q=deflationary+theory+of+truth&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 There are many implications of a theory of this sort for philosophical debate about the nature of truth. Philosophers often make suggestions like the following: truth consists in correspondence to the facts; truth consists in coherence with a set of beliefs or propositions; truth is the ideal outcome of rational inquiry. According to the deflationist, however, such suggestions are mistaken, and, moreover, they all share a common mistake. The common mistake is to assume that truth has a nature of the kind that philosophers might find out about and develop theories of. For the deflationist, truth has no nature beyond what is captured in ordinary claims such as that ‘snow is white’ is true just in case snow is white. Philosophers looking for the nature of truth are bound to be frustrated, the deflationist says, because they are looking for something that isn't there. Edited June 29, 2015 by mfbukowski
Gray Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) I am not one who goes to dictionaries to solve semantic problems "by definition". That is one ridiculous way to argue a point, in my opinion. But this word "fiction" in connection with the BOM really bothers me. I have NEVER considered it "fiction" even in my most anti-historic periods. I saw it as an inspired work, given to Joseph by God for our spiritual edification, which could not be proven to be historical or non-historical. But the word "fiction" never really applied as far as I was concerned. So I looked it up one minute ago just to see if I agreed with the dictionary. Yep."Fiction" is not applicable at all. The worst I can imagine that I might have ever said about it was that "Joseph thought it was historical, but was mistaken" Even THAT is far from "fiction" I wouldn't use the word fiction to describe it either (I was merely responding to Robert F. Smith's informal use of that term). Scripture is not in the same genre of fiction, even if the scripture in question has no historical basis. "Fictional" can be a short hand for "not based on real events" of course. But that's not the same thing as fiction as a genre. Edited June 29, 2015 by Gray
Bobbieaware Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 I have to admit that one of the weirdest traits attributed to God is that he thinks less of people who wait for good, solid evidence before believing something. I understand the whole story of "doubting Thomas", but when I imagine a harsh anti-Mormon standing before God and seeing everything in light of the new evidence and saying "Oh, now that you've explained it I fully believe in The Book of Mormon; the only reason I didn't is because of the very, very weak evidence we had in 1972." it would just seem odd for God (or anyone else) to judge such a person harshly. I would hope for the same compassion were I to one day stand before L. Ron Hubbard's immortal form and come to the full knowledge that he was right about everything by being shown new evidence. I would shrug my shoulders and say "Wow, the way this was presented in 2015 was really, really weird, but with this new evidence I now believe you 100%." There's nothing wrong with changing your judgement of something when the evidence also changes.I'm always surprised when a seasoned member of the Church appears to be ignorant ot the Church's teachings. Moroni teaches us the Book of Mormon is its own best evidence. All that's needed to gain a living testimony of it is to sincerely follow through on Moroni's promise and then the truthfullness of that most amazing Book will be revealed by revelation from God through the Holy Ghost. I have sincerely followed through on Moroni's promise and have received the promised revelation that has confirmed to my spirit, with spiritual evidence greater than sight, that that sacred book is verily true. If someone has not as yet had the experience of receiving revelation from God that confirms the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, trying to explain what it's like to receive that revelation is like trying to describe to a man who's been blind from birth what the color green looks like. What follows is God's own prescribed way that explains how to gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon: 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10)I absolute guarantee you that if the Book of Mormon plates were ever revealed for all the world to see, those who don't believe the Book of Mormon is true would say it's just an elaborate hoax, and the vast majority of the rest would loose interest almost immediately. And if Book of Mormon cities and artifacts were ever discovered, those who think they already know the Book of Mormon is false would just say it's one of those false miracles the Book of Revelation warns will take place in the last days to lead the sons and daughters of men astray, and the rest would go back to their comfort zones of spiritual ignorance after lifting their eyes to watch the TV news report for 30 seconds.God knows what he's doing. His prescribed way to gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon is for the truth seeker to have a TRULY sincere heart, TRULY sincere intent and REAL faith in Christ. But for all too many it seems exercising a sincere heart, sincere intent and real faith in Christ are the hardest things in the world to do. My hope is that when those who doubt my words get the whole picture they will apologize to the Lord for ever thinking it was a good idea to try to build the ranks of the Church by satisfying faithless sign-seekers.
tagriffy Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 I am not one who goes to dictionaries to solve semantic problems "by definition". That is one ridiculous way to argue a point, in my opinion. But this word "fiction" in connection with the BOM really bothers me. I have NEVER considered it "fiction" even in my most anti-historic periods. I saw it as an inspired work, given to Joseph by God for our spiritual edification, which could not be proven to be historical or non-historical. But the word "fiction" never really applied as far as I was concerned. So I looked it up one minute ago just to see if I agreed with the dictionary. Yep."Fiction" is not applicable at all. The worst I can imagine that I might have ever said about it was that "Joseph thought it was historical, but was mistaken" Even THAT is far from "fiction" I've been trying to come up with an appropriate word myself. I've used the terms "fiction" and "pseudepigrapha" in the past. I'm starting to toy with the word "novel." There just aren't that many, if any, terms I could used without immediately being accused of saying the Book of Mormon isn't true. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the Book of Mormon is true (better, True); it's just not historical. If Bokovoy is successful in redeeming the term "pseudepigrapha" for Latter-day Saints, I'll stick with that. If I had a term that was precise enough to capture what I mean while being positive (or at least neutral) in connotation, I'd use it.
Avatar4321 Posted June 29, 2015 Author Posted June 29, 2015 I have to admit that one of the weirdest traits attributed to God is that he thinks less of people who wait for good, solid evidence before believing something. I understand the whole story of "doubting Thomas", but when I imagine a harsh anti-Mormon standing before God and seeing everything in light of the new evidence and saying "Oh, now that you've explained it I fully believe in The Book of Mormon; the only reason I didn't is because of the very, very weak evidence we had in 1972." it would just seem odd for God (or anyone else) to judge such a person harshly. I would hope for the same compassion were I to one day stand before L. Ron Hubbard's immortal form and come to the full knowledge that he was right about everything by being shown new evidence. I would shrug my shoulders and say "Wow, the way this was presented in 2015 was really, really weird, but with this new evidence I now believe you 100%." There's nothing wrong with changing your judgement of something when the evidence also changes.Because doesn't expect us to wait for truth to be presented to us. He expects us to go out and work hard seeking truth.
Recommended Posts