BoM as metaphor

[stemelbow]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865642903/Literally-hard-facts-at-the-beginning-of-Mormonism.html

I think Dan makes some good points here.  But I question the all or nothing approach--meaning if the plates were tangible and were ancient that means the story Joseph dictated was that which was found on the plates.  Sadly all the effort concerning the BoA and papyri seem to suggest it's possible the plates might not have contained the BoM story as we have it.  Or if they did, perhaps in our hands the story is much different than from the perspective of the Nephites, which could have been different from those who remained after Moroni, if ever they could have seen the writings.  I would suggest it's possible the BoM is authentically scripture and yet much of it originated in Joseph's conception, or spiritual imaginings.  Perhaps there was a Nephi and Alma, and perhaps in their language their names were so different from Nephi and Alma.  Perhaps Nephi did come with his family from Jerusalem to "the new world".  But perhaps there's more metaphor in the story of their travels than history.  I think it possible. 

 

Why not?

[Bob Crockett]

Dr. Peterson makes a hugely important point about the physicality of the Gospel, with its various tangible proofs and witnesses.  Then there's the physical nature of the Father and the Son.   Really, a direct affront to Plato.  

[Gray]

While the call to fundamentalism is a part of the orthodox LDS narrative about how we treat the Book of Mormon, there is absolutely nothing that compels us to treat it as a literal history. 

And really, the question of its historicity has nothing to do with its value as scripture. It's pretty irrelevant, IMO. 

Edited December 4, 2015 by Gray

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

While the call to fundamentalism is a part of the orthodox LDS narrative about how we treat the Book of Mormon, there is absolutely nothing that compels us to treat it as a literal history. 

Sure, here's a quote from the article which got me thinking about this:

If the “keystone” of Mormonism was delivered wrapped in fabrications, regarding it as nevertheless somehow “true” becomes — to put it mildly — much more difficult. Like the bodily resurrection of Christ from death, the physicality of the Book of Mormon — recovered from a dead pre-Columbian civilization — resists attempts to treat it as merely symbol or metaphor. It forthrightly demands to be understood as literally, tangibly true. It virtually forces a sharp decision.

I was confused how he went from supporting the story of the plates being tangible to the story of the Boom demanding to be true, as if it has to be historically accurate.  I don't get why it must.  It certainly is not the bodily resurrection of Christ or anything like that event. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I was confused how he went from supporting the story of the plates being tangible to the story of the Boom demanding to be true, as if it has to be historically accurate.  I don't get why it must.  It certainly is not the bodily resurrection of Christ or anything like that event. 

Maybe it has to do with the idea of why God would provide both the plates and the scriptures on them.

If the plates were tangible (really existed) and the BOM is true (contains accurate doctrine), then why would God have instructed JS to translate something different than was actually written on them?  

He must have had specific reasons for providing both plates and the scriptures together.  I think Peterson is saying that the logical answer (maybe not the only answer, but the only logical one) to the reason why is that the plates contained the scriptures.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Maybe it has to do with the idea of why God would provide both the plates and the scriptures on them.

If the plates were tangible (really existed) and the BOM is true (contains accurate doctrine), then why would God have instructed JS to translate something different than was actually written on them?  

He must have had specific reasons for providing both plates and the scriptures together.  I think Peterson is saying that the logical answer (maybe not the only answer, but the only logical one) to the reason why is that the plates contained the scriptures.

That's what I'm saying,  The BoA, possibly, is informative on this.  Many have taken the view that the papyri were catalysts.  That the story that came out of the process were not on the papyri at all.  Added to this is the lack of historicity throughout the BIble--meaning the Bible recordings were far more about moral story telling, personal or in-group motivation, then it is about telling us history.  For instance, many take Jonah being swallowed by the fish as metaphor rather than attempting to tell us what really happened. 

[Gray]

30 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure, here's a quote from the article which got me thinking about this:

 

 

I was confused how he went from supporting the story of the plates being tangible to the story of the Boom demanding to be true, as if it has to be historically accurate.  I don't get why it must.  It certainly is not the bodily resurrection of Christ or anything like that event. 

Yes, and here's the thing. If the BOM really is ancient, there is little chance of it being an accurate history. Ancient scripture writers were story tellers, not historians. 

[nealr]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I was confused how he went from supporting the story of the plates being tangible to the story of the Boom demanding to be true, as if it has to be historically accurate.  I don't get why it must.  It certainly is not the bodily resurrection of Christ or anything like that event. 

This is really not terribly complicated. If Joseph has real artifacts, but the Book of Mormon is not real history, then where did those artifacts come from? Who made them? Why did they make them? And, where did they go? 

Did Joseph Smith make them? If so, how can his claims of getting them from an angel and translating a genuine history from them not be deemed a deception of delusion? 

Did some unknown party make them, and Joseph just happen to find them? Then, again, we need to ask how can his claims of getting them from an angel and translating a genuine history from them not be deemed a deception of delusion? 

Did God lead him to the plates, and deceive him into thinking they contained history that was never real? If so, how can we trust such a God? And why would God do something like that anyway? Surely if God can reveal something like the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith, then he can do the same to people throughout history, and thus can have a real history of his dealings with humans to share rather than a fake one. 

And no, the situation is not all that analogous to the Book of Abraham. Setting aside for the moment the fact that I personally reject the catalyst theory and find it rather problematic, it is quite the different thing for Joseph to receive a revelation catalyzed by a traveling salesman's ancient artifacts and get confused about the connection. It is a whole different thing to be given artifacts by an angel, who explains exactly what the artifacts are and what he is supposed to do with them, and have none of that be true. We are talking apples and oranges, folks.

If you can make it work, more power to ya. But to say that it is more difficult, as Dr. Peterson did, seems quite accurate. 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865642903/Literally-hard-facts-at-the-beginning-of-Mormonism.html

I think Dan makes some good points here.

I think that we relegate things to metaphor when it doesn’t meet our criteria for what constitutes a fact (or don’t know or don’t care whether it is a fact), and relegate things to fact when it does. I see that as a separate determination from the truthfulness of the subject we are examining. Obviously not everyone agrees on the methods of either fact-finding or truth-finding!

In the case of the Book of Mormon, if one believes that Joseph’s possession of an authentic ancient relic was necessary for bringing out its message, we should consider what expectations and knowledge he had of it and its contents before he had it in his possession to translate. I think it is fairly well documented outside of JS-H 1 that in 1823 he was given to know that “…there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants; Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.”

Consistency in this point (by someone whose frontal lobe as not fully developed!) for several intervening years until he received the plates in 1827 and then published the book in 1830 indicates that he translated what he was first advised would be found on them (an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, their origins, the fulness of the everlasting Gospel as delivered by the Savior to them, etc.).

There is additional “indisputable physicality” in the lives and actions of everyone involved along the way for and against the relic; what Joseph did with it, and what his enemies tried to do with it.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, nealr said:

This is really not terribly complicated. If Joseph has real artifacts, but the Book of Mormon is not real history, then where did those artifacts come from? Who made them? Why did they make them? And, where did they go? 

Did Joseph Smith make them? If so, how can his claims of getting them from an angel and translating a genuine history from them not be deemed a deception of delusion? 

He didn't refer to the plates during translation, for one.  So even he might not have realized that that which was on the plates was not the BoM story that he dictated.  How would he know, not knowing the language?  So, in my mind saying it would be a deception of delusion doesn't work.  Just like the plates were unnecessary for the translation process so was the papyri, apparently.  I'm not saying this is a must.  I'm saying it's possible.  It's possible the story is metaphorical and not historical and still be scripture.  It's possible the plates and all were real, ancient and tangible and still the story not be found on the plates. 

1 minute ago, nealr said:

Did some unknown party make them, and Joseph just happen to find them? Then, again, we need to ask how can his claims of getting them from an angel and translating a genuine history from them not be deemed a deception of delusion? 

The plates weren't used for translation, apparently.  That means an angel showing him where they were, and having him get them, had a meaning we simply don't understand and may not really apply. 

1 minute ago, nealr said:

Did God lead him to the plates, and deceive him into thinking they contained history that was never real?

That's the question remaining with the BoA, then.  We can't derive the BoA story from the papyri, at least not the surviving portions.  It's possible that which is not surviving was not enough to contain it and if it did, it seems out of place considering what is the papyri.  So, why did that all happen?  We don't know. 

 

1 minute ago, nealr said:

 

If so, how can we trust such a God? And why would God do something like that anyway? Surely if God can reveal something like the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith, then he can do the same to people throughout history, and thus can have a real history of his dealings with humans to share rather than a fake one. 

But, likely, that's never happened.  The Bible is a melding of many sources, it seems, and it often contradicts.  It seems more likely the Bible is a set of writings of men trying to describe their dealings with God.  Not likely it's writings to describe history and less likely to be first hand anyway.  It's story telling for faith. 

 

1 minute ago, nealr said:

And no, the situation is not all that analogous to the Book of Abraham. Setting aside for the moment the fact that I personally reject the catalyst theory and find it rather problematic, it is quite the different thing for Joseph to receive a revelation catalyzed by a traveling salesman's ancient artifacts and get confused about the connection. It is a whole different thing to be given artifacts by an angel, who explains exactly what the artifacts are and what he is supposed to do with them, and have none of that be true. We are talking apples and oranges, folks.

If you can make it work, more power to ya. But to say that it is more difficult, as Dr. Peterson did, seems quite accurate. 

 

It wouldn't matter from whence the artifacts came.  Either way, Joseph claimed he "translated" the plates and the papyri.  It's possible that the translation was actually not stories found on the original items.  It's likely he didn't even use the artifacts when translating. 

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, and here's the thing. If the BOM really is ancient, there is little chance of it being an accurate history. Ancient scripture writers were story tellers, not historians. 

In the secular work, The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels (Hinges of History) by Thomas Cahill, the point is recognized that ancient scripture writers were indeed historians by their own standard, making a faithful record to capture facts, metaphors, perceptions, etc. (often decades and centuries after the “fact”), by and large to preserve a faithful (good-faith) testimony or keep faithful record of their people. Classifying what is and is not scripture often came much later (expect perhaps in the case of recording revelation).

[halconero]

My views on the historicity of the Book of Mormon aside, I think it would be interesting to analyze the 'literalist' paradigm with regards to scripture. This is the notion that  it's true or not, that the reality of it matters, etc etc.

Such a paradigm is actually rather recent in Christian memory, and only began with the rise of Evangelicalism in North America (well...one could make an argument that Reformation-era Protestants were proto-literalists). There is a far older paradigm in the Christian tradition which doesn't require such strenuous requirements. Developed by the Early Church Fathers and gathered by Augustine, early Christians used reason and love as standards against which they measured the literalness of scripture. To put it simply, August said that if a scripture coincided with the standards of rationality and Christlike love it was literal. If it did not it was figurative and symbolic.

There might be something useful in studying the scriptures with such a mindset from time to time.

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's what I'm saying,  The BoA, possibly, is informative on this.  Many have taken the view that the papyri were catalysts.  That the story that came out of the process were not on the papyri at all.  Added to this is the lack of historicity throughout the BIble--meaning the Bible recordings were far more about moral story telling, personal or in-group motivation, then it is about telling us history.  For instance, many take Jonah being swallowed by the fish as metaphor rather than attempting to tell us what really happened. 

I think a careful analysis (which probably cannot be done here) of the differences in origin between the Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, Bible, and Doctrine and Covenants, etc., both in the tangible sources and their messages, will show that they have widely disparate relationships to history and historical content.

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In the secular work, The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels (Hinges of History) by Thomas Cahill, the point is recognized that ancient scripture writers were indeed historians by their own standard, making a faithful record to capture facts, metaphors, perceptions, etc. (often decades and centuries after the “fact”), by and large to preserve a faithful (good-faith) testimony or keep faithful record of their people. Classifying what is and is not scripture often came much later (expect perhaps in the case of recording revelation).

Yes, but the issue is what they did capture doesn't accord with our standards of history capturing. 

[nealr]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

He didn't refer to the plates during translation, for one.  So even he might not have realized that that which was on the plates was not the BoM story that he dictated.  How would he know, not knowing the language?  So, in my mind saying it would be a deception of delusion doesn't work.  Just like the plates were unnecessary for the translation process so was the papyri, apparently.  I'm not saying this is a must.  I'm saying it's possible.  It's possible the story is metaphorical and not historical and still be scripture.  It's possible the plates and all were real, ancient and tangible and still the story not be found on the plates. 

The plates weren't used for translation, apparently.  That means an angel showing him where they were, and having him get them, had a meaning we simply don't understand and may not really apply. 

That's the question remaining with the BoA, then.  We can't derive the BoA story from the papyri, at least not the surviving portions.  It's possible that which is not surviving was not enough to contain it and if it did, it seems out of place considering what is the papyri.  So, why did that all happen?  We don't know. 

 

But, likely, that's never happened.  The Bible is a melding of many sources, it seems, and it often contradicts.  It seems more likely the Bible is a set of writings of men trying to describe their dealings with God.  Not likely it's writings to describe history and less likely to be first hand anyway.  It's story telling for faith. 

 

It wouldn't matter from whence the artifacts came.  Either way, Joseph claimed he "translated" the plates and the papyri.  It's possible that the translation was actually not stories found on the original items.  It's likely he didn't even use the artifacts when translating. 

1. Not completely accurate to say he didn't refer to the plates when translating. Some accounts indicate that he did, and it is likely that at times, he did. He was even able to tell which plate the title page was on (which, he oddly said was the last plate--something consistent with ancient practices, but not with 19th century norms). You are ignoring the simple questions I asked, which is of course necessary if you want to take a non-historical approach to the Book of Mormon and still see it as scripture. Uncomfortable questions lead to uncomfortable answers. 

2. You repeatedly draw on the Book of Abraham, despite that fact that (1) I told you I reject the catalyst theory and find it unpersuasive, and (2) I don't see it an analogous anyway. Your only response to this is "it doesn't matter." Sorry, but I think it very much matters if you get an artifact from an angel, who tells you what it is, or not.

3. You keep saying there is no way for Joseph to have known if what he was receiving was on the plates. But this simply ignores the fact that he was told by an angel that what was on the plates was the history he was to translate. And the 3 witnesses testified that the voice of God told them the Book of Mormon was a correct translation of what was on the plates they were being shown. To maintain that he had no way of knowing is basically to insist that God could not competently communicate to Joseph, in which case we have no reason to believe the Book of Mormon is revelation at all. 

Like I said, you are welcome to believe whatever you want. But don't think it is going to a lot more than this for me to find such a position rational in any sense. Of course, if all you mean by scripture is literature that inspires you in some vague sense, then alright, sure, anything can be scripture then. But sure is not how it is defined within the LDS Church, nor by Joseph Smith.

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In the secular work, The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels (Hinges of History) by Thomas Cahill, the point is recognized that ancient scripture writers were indeed historians by their own standard, making a faithful record to capture facts, metaphors, perceptions, etc. (often decades and centuries after the “fact”), by and large to preserve a faithful (good-faith) testimony or keep faithful record of their people. Classifying what is and is not scripture often came much later (expect perhaps in the case of recording revelation).

By their own standard? Maybe, but not historians in a way we would recognize today. These stories were sometimes written centuries after the fact, with no verification of primary sources. The historical method as we understand it was not developed until much later. 

[nealr]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

By their own standard? Maybe, but not historians in a way we would recognize today. These stories were sometimes written centuries after the fact, with no verification of primary sources. The historical method as we understand it was not developed until much later. 

Baruch Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (Harper, 1988) does argue that they were historians by any reasonable definition of the word. History writing is not defined by historical accuracy, but aims and purpose. They were interested in accurately recording the past, and they worked with the sources they had to do that. Halpern even sees critical engagement with the sources to try and gauge their accuracy. Their sources may have been limited and wrong, their methods primitive, and their conclusions mistaken. But that does not make them any less historians. We don't dis-label historians from, say, the 19th century, or even the 1960s, simply because we do history differently than they did. So it makes no sense to strip the early Israelite historians of that same status.

(And, for the record, I think the early Israelite historians did a better job than many tend to give them credit for.)

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, nealr said:

1. Not completely accurate to say he didn't refer to the plates when translating. Some accounts indicate that he did, and it is likely that at times, he did. He was even able to tell which plate the title page was on (which, he oddly said was the last plate--something consistent with ancient practices, but not with 19th century norms). You are ignoring the simple questions I asked, which is of course necessary if you want to take a non-historical approach to the Book of Mormon and still see it as scripture. Uncomfortable questions lead to uncomfortable answers. 

2. You repeatedly draw on the Book of Abraham, despite that fact that (1) I told you I reject the catalyst theory and find it unpersuasive, and (2) I don't see it an analogous anyway. Your only response to this is "it doesn't matter." Sorry, but I think it very much matters if you get an artifact from an angel, who tells you what it is, or not.

3. You keep saying there is no way for Joseph to have known if what he was receiving was on the plates. But this simply ignores the fact that he was told by an angel that what was on the plates was the history he was to translate. And the 3 witnesses testified that the voice of God told them the Book of Mormon was a correct translation of what was on the plates they were being shown. To maintain that he had no way of knowing is basically to insist that God could not competently communicate to Joseph, in which case we have no reason to believe the Book of Mormon is revelation at all. 

 

1.  Whether he referred to the plates or not during translation is one thing, but to say they were used in translation, doesn't seem likely.  He may or may not have known much about the title page at all.  Perhaps he thought he knew which page was the title page and did not.  It's possible.  I apologize if I missed some questions.  I thought I addressed them, but if you have any you want me to answer and feel I did not, please advise. 

2.  It doesn't matter, as I see it, in the sense, that even if you reject the catalyst theory, not everyone does.  I'm suggesting since it's possible for believers to hold to the catalyst theory, it's also possible for a believer to see the plates and the BoM similarly.  What I'm eager to understand was Dan's insistence that someone can't do that.  I think it possible. I don't see how Moroni visiting him and telling him of the plates really addresses this issue.  It's possible Moroni led him to the plates and the resulting BoM not really be an accurate depiction of what's on the plates.  It's possible Moroni led him to the plates and the resulting story not be historically accurate.  It's possible the story that is the BoM came precisely from the plates and that which is on the plates is not historically accurate either.  There are too many possibilities to just say it's impossible to see metaphor in the story and still be a believer. 

3.  As per the angel telling him.  It's possible for Moroni to have told him about the plates and what they contained and yet the story itself carried with it metaphor.  I dont' see an affirmation of historic accuracy in this account.  Neither do I with the witness testimony. 

'And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true."

This doesn't quite say that God told them the work represent accurate history.  I think this is stretching it. 

I'm not saying he had no way of knowing. I'm saying it's possible he did not know. 

Like I said, you are welcome to believe whatever you want. But don't think it is going to a lot more than this for me to find such a position rational in any sense. Of course, if 

all

 you mean by scripture is literature that inspires you in some vague sense, then alright, sure, 

anything

 can be scripture then. But sure is not how it is defined within the LDS Church, nor by Joseph Smith.[/quote]

I find your passion impressive.  I tend to think it okay to believe the BoM is not history, per se, and yet still be scripture.  I think there's tons of room to believe that, rationally.  I suppose you can argue it's not accurate, as could Dan.  I just don't see an argument presented.  But a claim.  That would be why I started this thread--to discuss the claim you make here. 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, nealr said:

Baruch Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (Harper, 1988) does argue that they were historians by any reasonable definition of the word. History writing is not defined by historical accuracy, but aims and purpose. They were interested in accurately recording the past, and they worked with the sources they had to do that. Halpern even sees critical engagement with the sources to try and gauge their accuracy. Their sources may have been limited and wrong, their methods primitive, and their conclusions mistaken. But that does not make them any less historians. We don't dis-label historians from, say, the 19th century, or even the 1960s, simply because we do history differently than they did. So it makes no sense to strip the early Israelite historians of that same status.

(And, for the record, I think the early Israelite historians did a better job than many tend to give them credit for.)

 

I think youre "for the record" interesting.  I'm not sure how well of a job they did, or if we can really tell.  But it is apparent, the stories were passed around.  That the stories were recorded from different perspectives at different times, causing contradictions and inconsistencies.  I wouldn't say they weren't historians on such grounds.  Only that their records are to be understood in that light.  It would suggest that there are historical inaccuracies.  The degree to which, I'm not sure we can know at this time.  We can only guess. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, nealr said:

Baruch Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (Harper, 1988) does argue that they were historians by any reasonable definition of the word. History writing is not defined by historical accuracy, but aims and purpose. They were interested in accurately recording the past, and they worked with the sources they had to do that. Halpern even sees critical engagement with the sources to try and gauge their accuracy. Their sources may have been limited and wrong, their methods primitive, and their conclusions mistaken. But that does not make them any less historians. We don't dis-label historians from, say, the 19th century, or even the 1960s, simply because we do history differently than they did. So it makes no sense to strip the early Israelite historians of that same status.

(And, for the record, I think the early Israelite historians did a better job than many tend to give them credit for.)

I'm happy to be flexible in my use of language. But I think my characterization of what they were producing (stories with only occasional connection to verified history) was correct. I suppose we could compare it to ancient and modern medicine. Medicine existed in 400 BC, but the procedures and knowledge base were vastly different. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Yes, but the issue is what they did capture doesn't accord with our standards of history capturing. 

But you have no standard for history-writing for the Nephites, only that the angel told Joseph that the plates contained "an account [or history] of the former inhabitants of this [tangible] continent." The angel considered it history; perhaps we need to speak with the tongue of angels to understand what his standards were and take the book for what it is! Now is that too literal, or too metaphorical to grasp?

1 hour ago, Gray said:

By their own standard? Maybe, but not historians in a way we would recognize today. These stories were sometimes written centuries after the fact, with no verification of primary sources. The historical method as we understand it was not developed until much later. 

See above. Why would the Nephites write according to a future standard? Why would God hold them to that? What did the Book of Mormon writers write/say about their standards, and how it needs to be understood "in some future day" to "future generations"? The answer is a word search of the Book or Mormon -- literally!

[Gray]

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

See above. Why would the Nephites write according to a future standard? Why would God hold them to that? What did the Book of Mormon writers write/say about their standards, and how it needs to be understood "in some future day" to "future generations"? The answer is a word search of the Book or Mormon -- literally!

You've identified an anachronism in the BOM, here. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, nealr said:

Baruch Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (Harper, 1988) does argue that they were historians by any reasonable definition of the word. History writing is not defined by historical accuracy, but aims and purpose. They were interested in accurately recording the past, and they worked with the sources they had to do that. Halpern even sees critical engagement with the sources to try and gauge their accuracy. Their sources may have been limited and wrong, their methods primitive, and their conclusions mistaken. But that does not make them any less historians. We don't dis-label historians from, say, the 19th century, or even the 1960s, simply because we do history differently than they did. So it makes no sense to strip the early Israelite historians of that same status.

(And, for the record, I think the early Israelite historians did a better job than many tend to give them credit for.)

To refer to the various Israelite professional scribes and writing prophets as "historians" is incongruous and absurd, and Baruch Halpern should know better.  That is not to say that they were not skilled story-tellers or literary maestros.  In their hands, literary art was often very highly developed, but that must not be confused with true historiography, which has a strong set of canons to be followed.

The Bible and Book of Mormon were written and edited by some very capable scribes, among them priests and prophets whom we hold in high esteem.  Yet their work is not "history" as such (although historians can derive some real history from it), but rather annals and reflections, which must be cross-checked with annals from other nations (such as the eponym-calendars of the Assyrians and Babylonians), and a wide variety of hard evidence (archeological, astronomical, etc.).  The purpose of the biblical and Book of Mormon writers and editors was not actually historiographic, but rather the presentation of a diverse literary heritage which focused on the mighty acts of God.

It is oxymoronic to combine history-writing with Scripture.  They serve utterly different purposes, and are composed very differently.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[CV75]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not saying he had no way of knowing. I'm saying it's possible he did not know. 

I think you may be conflating the connection between a tangible relic, its historical content, and a translation of the content (by whatever means), with the accuracy (by the original engravers) and actuality (by the translator) of any history therein. Maybe Dan is too! LOL…

I go back to the consistency with which the idea of its historical aspect accompanied the Book of Mormon from its heralding by Moroni, through Joseph’s years of framing it as a history as he told people about it before he got the plates, and what he said about it during the translation process. I think that is a key to connecting the belief in tangible plates with tangible engravings with a belief in a good-faith history being engraved and translated.

I think the alternative that Joseph came up with an inspired allegory containing prophecies of actual future events a bit self-contradicting, especially when the Lord’s speaks of  Book of Mormon events and people as actual events and people (D&C 1:29 and 3:16-20. I know people like to compare this with His mention of Jonas in His mortal ministry (and that Jonas wasn't real), but you really can't compare the mortal Jesus with the Immortal Jesus on how He handles scripture, nor the respective audiences and purposes.

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

You've identified an anachronism in the BOM, here. 

That is so vague a statement it's impossible for me to address it at this point. I can only take it as a play on words about the ancients predicting the future, but let's not go there yet.

I'd still like to hear your answers since you brought up the arguments:

Why would the Nephites write according to a future standard?

Why would God hold them to that?

What did the Book of Mormon writers write/say about their standards?

What did the Book of Mormon writers write/say about how the Book of Mormon needs to be understood "in some future day" to "future generations"?