BoM as metaphor

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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

Of course our canon is a mix. Some history (as imperfect or made-up as it may be) became scripture. Some scripture is imperfect, and even made-up. Some was directed to be written or included by God, with definite historical reference and purposing for testimony. Some scripture was classified as scripture and preserved by mortal wisdom and skill, and some by the design and power of God.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Of course our canon is a mix. Some history (as imperfect or made-up as it may be) became scripture. Some scripture is imperfect, and even made-up. Some was directed to be written or included by God, with definite historical reference and purposing for testimony. Some scripture was classified as scripture and preserved by mortal wisdom and skill, and some by the design and power of God.

History is a very specific discipline, and degrees are offered in it.  It has a specific set of canons of historiography.  Historians jealously and zealously guard that professional designation, and don't appreciate being mangled by association with off-the-wall writers who imagine themselves to be historians.  Historians are critical scholars.  They may use Scripture, diaries, archeology, etc., as sources, but they never make the mistake of considering such sources as "history."  It is not.

 

ETA:  CV75 says that " you may be conflating the connection between a tangible relic, its historical content, and a translation of the content (by whatever means), with the accuracy (by the original engravers) and actuality (by the translator) of any history therein."

Edited December 4, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[nealr]

34 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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 derives 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.

Robert, if you haven't I recommend you actually read Halpern's book before declaring his argument absurd. I am a little surprised to see you basically insisting on modern definitions of historiography to define ancient historiography. If we want to clarify and say they were not modern historians, or their writings are not history in the modern sense, that is one thing. But to simply say they were not historians in my view smacks of modern ethnocentrism.  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, nealr said:

Robert, if you haven't I recommend you actually read Halpern's book before declaring his argument absurd. I am a little surprised to see you basically insisting on modern definitions of historiography to define ancient historiography. If we want to clarify and say they were not modern historians, or their writings are not history in the modern sense, that is one thing. But to simply say they were not historians in my view smacks of modern ethnocentrism.  

Maybe so, but that is just what I am doing.  To confuse the two very separate endeavors is fatal, IMHO.  Even Herodotus doesn't pass muster.  Otherwise we will forever confuse modern historiography with ancient annals and scribal activity.  They are just not the same, and must be treated very differently.

[nealr]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

Maybe so, but that is just what I am doing.  To confuse the two very separate endeavors is fatal, IMHO.  Even Herodotus doesn't pass muster.  Otherwise we will forever confuse modern historiography with ancient annals and scribal activity.  They are just not the same, and must be treated very differently.

I think we are closer to agreement than it might have initially seemed. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Just now, nealr said:

I think we are closer to agreement than it might have initially seemed. 

Knowing you and your excellent work, Neal, that is probably true.

[mapman]

The question of how the Book of Mormon text relates to the golden plates is an interesting one. I think we need to keep the following in mind:

1. The evidence in my opinion is convincing that there were actual physical plates that Joseph Smith had with ancient writing on them. I believe, as a Mormon, that he received these plates from the angel Moroni under God's direction.

2. This wasn't a translation in the conventional sense of the word, so we shouldn't treat it as such. Whatever it was, it definitely wasn't Joseph Smith reading the ancient language and rendering it into English. He couldn't read the ancient language.

3. The translation process was something that occurred in Joseph Smith's mind (a divine process in my opinion). Joseph Smith received a revelation that described the process in this way: "you must study it out in your mind;  then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right,  I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you:  therefore, you shall feel that it is right; but if it be  not right, you shall have no such feelings, but you  shall have a stupor of thought, that shall cause you  to forget the thing which is wrong." This clearly refutes the idea that some of Joseph Smith's associates had that there were words physically appearing in the seer stone.

4. The "study" referred to above presumably refers to such activities as learning from the angel Moroni about the Nephite civilization, studying the characters on the plates and transcribing them, and bringing them to learned men to analyze them.

5. The text of the Book of Mormon is expressed in language and ideas that fit in a 19th century American context. For example, many phrases are borrowed from the King James Version New Testament throughout the Book of Mormon and theological ideas are expressed in a 19th Century Protestant manner.

6. The basic story and many details of the Book of Mormon are unlike anything else in 19th Century America and make more sense for an ancient record. Although some view the Book of Mormon as being a product of American Protestantism, it shares much in common with the tradition of American Indian prophecy.

I don't have a strong opinion on how the Book of Mormon text relates exactly with the golden plates, but I think it probably has a pretty close correspondence with the ancient record, though I think certain passages were probably revelations to Joseph Smith that weren't originally on the golden plates. I think it's interesting that God chose to bring an Indian record to light through a Gentile. I expect that God's purpose wasn't so much to have the record translated in the conventional sense but rather have the revelations of Joseph Smith's people (the Bible) run together with the scripture of the Indians. "And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also." (2 Nephi 29:8)

[Gray]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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"?

If the Nephite prophets were using modern historical tools to make sure they got their facts right, that would be an anachronism. 

As far as the Book's relevance to future generations, I don't see the connection between that and its historicity. Either the teachings are relevant or they are not. Their history is not what connects the BOM to our day. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Richard Rust says that the Book of Mormon is a metaphor, i.e., "The Book of Mormon is itself a tree of life--a work of beauty and purity, with its words to be feasted upon."  Rust, Feasting on the Word (FARMS/Deseret Book, 2997), 4.

Indeed, on p. 121-122, Rust quotes Alma 5:34-35,

Quote

34 Yea, he saith: Come unto me and ye shall partake of the fruit of the tree of life; yea, ye shall eat and drink of the bread and the waters of life freely;
35 Yea, come unto me and bring forth works of righteousness, and ye shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire—
36 For behold, the time is at hand that whosoever bringeth forth not good fruit, or whosoever doeth not the works of righteousness, the same have cause to wail and mourn.

 

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours 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. 

People attempt to make metaphors out of everything if they don't understand it or don't have proof for it.  They say the garden of Eden is a metaphor, the great flood is a metaphor,  ect.  Perhaps all the miracles of Jesus are metaphors.  Perhaps the resurrection is a metaphor. I see no reason for the writers of the plates to spend their time inscribing and Mormon abridging the plates for the simple purpose to be a catalyst of something.  I guess the writers could have scribbled on the plates and that would have been good enough.  What Joseph did was a translation of those plates.  No translation is perfect but what Joseph translated is a fairly good representation of what was in the plates.  As to whether the BOA was a catalyst, who knows.  Since we don't have that papyri one can come up with any theory but the Book of Mormon was written by a people for US so I would not associate the work that went into the plates with what the BOA papyri was. 

[Nevo]

For what it's worth, Marc Zvi Brettler, in his book, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel, surveys various definitions of "history" (including Halpern's) and then offers the following thoughts:

Quote

In sum, definitions that emphasize the scientific nature of history, its fundamental differences from literature, or the intentions of the author, are problematic. For these reasons, I propose defining a historical narrative within biblical studies as "a narrative that presents a past." The group of "narratives that present a past" delimits a meaningful corpus of biblical texts which may be distinguished from other corpora, such as law, proverbs, psalms and (most of) prophecy. It does not, one may object, allow for the traditional distinction between myth or legend and history; however, as Matitiahu Tsevat notes, there is no internal biblical reason to distinguish between these genres; from the perspective of the Israelite, "the waters of Noah are no less real than the waters of Shiloah."

— Marc Zvi Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (New York: Routledge, 1995), 12.

Undoubtedly, the Book of Mormon is "a narrative that presents a past" and, speaking for myself, I can readily assent that the waters of Mormon are no less real than the waters of Noah. So count me in the Book of Mormon-as-history camp

[Calm]

6 hours 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.

Especially given the ties between the plates and the text that were also given (for example, the story of the plates written in the BoM itself).

[volgadon]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Especially given the ties between the plates and the text that were also given (for example, the story of the plates written in the BoM itself).

This is an important point, IMHO. I think it vital to consider the internal evidence/narrative when considering how the text was created or appeared.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

History is a very specific discipline, and degrees are offered in it.  It has a specific set of canons of historiography.  Historians jealously and zealously guard that professional designation, and don't appreciate being mangled by association with off-the-wall writers who imagine themselves to be historians.  Historians are critical scholars.  They may use Scripture, diaries, archeology, etc., as sources, but they never make the mistake of considering such sources as "history."  It is not.

 

ETA:  CV75 says that " 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."

From some course offerings:

“The intention of Disciplines of History is to encourage students to reflect on the changing nature of the historical discipline”

http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/prospective/undergraduate/studying/single-hons/disciplines-of-history-fhs.html

 

“In addition to limiting the scope of their historical study, historians also take different approaches to their inquiries… Because different historians take different approaches to their research and writing, and because individual historians bring different perspectives and different questions to their work, historical interpretations are constantly changing and evolving.”

https://www.shoreline.edu/faculty/kinsel/history-discipline.aspx

 

I agree that history as a modern discipline, although evolving and carried out with varying (and sometimes conflicting and contradicting) approaches and interpretations is not the same discipline (if the writers used any at all) that resulted in the source material for the Book of Mormon (whether that is Moroni's abridgement, the works he studied, or Joseph's translation). Those who write source material are almost never historians, and even those who were are hardly so from most modern scholars' perspectives (especially the further back we go). But I don't see the poor quality of historical accounting (I think it was Elder Oaks that said it is not a history book) negating the essence of history that supports the testimony of very real interactions between God and man, and how that plays out in mortal affairs through time.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

If the Nephite prophets were using modern historical tools to make sure they got their facts right, that would be an anachronism.

I don't see anyone asserting that such an anachronism exists.

3 hours ago, Gray said:

As far as the Book's relevance to future generations, I don't see the connection between that and its historicity. Either the teachings are relevant or they are not. Their history is not what connects the BOM to our day. 

Allegories do not contain prophecies about the future that hinge on fabled events; such prophecies would also be allegorical. History begets history; it doesn't just appear out of allegory. There is another thread about Book of Mormon prophecies that were fulfilled after its publication and have their root in the Book of Mormon events that precipitated them.

Other than genetics and the events genetic inheritors impose upon their heirs, history by the human hand (however poorly it can be said to be recorded and transmitted) uniquely ties the past and present together because it is consciously and intentionally used across human generations for that purpose. The Book of Mormon is a testament of such real events and prophecies for the very purposes repeated often the text. Simply put, the Lord is not allegorical.

I think you overlooked the following:

What did the Book of Mormon writers write/say about their writing 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"? (Word search "understand scriptures").

[smac97]

9 hours 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. 

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

"There is absolutely nothing that compels us" in pretty much any part of the Restored Gospel.  Compulsion is not really part of the plan.

But I believe that to reject The Book of Mormon as a "literal history" (I'm not sure how much precision to apply to that phrase) is to reject it for what it claims to be.  The Book of Mormon does not claim to be metaphor.  Or "inspired fiction" (or any other species of fiction).  

I do not think that "belief in The Book of Mormon as history" is important in and of itself. It is an abridgment. It is probably not free of cultural bias. It is missing all sort of important pieces of "history." Most of all, it is not intended to be a history book as much as a religious book.

However, I think the underlying issue is about historicity, that the events in the text actually, really happened (even though they may not be perfectly and accurately recorded in all respects). Some folks want to propagate the idea that The Book of Mormon can be a work of fiction, a fabrication, that there never was an actual person named Lehi, or that he and his family migrated to the Americas, etc.

If that is the issue, then historicity is, I think, very important. I refer you to Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson and published by the FARMS (now the Maxwell Institute)? A review of it is available online here.  Here are a few comments from the reviewer, Keith Lane (emphases added):

It was probably inevitable that a need for a book like this would arise.

...

It can only be expected, then, that such secularized scholarship would find its way into studies of Latter-day Saint scripture, belief, and practice. A recent trend among a minority of writers has been to give an alternative reading to Latter-day scripture, seeing, for example, the Book of Mormon as an elaborate parable or as a book containing a meaningful ethics or theology, but whose characters and events have no basis in history and whose origin is not what Joseph Smith claimed it was.

Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures responds to the assertion that Latter-day Saint scripture could be in some sense meaningful even if the events and people mentioned in it were not actually real. The resounding response from those whose essays appear in this collection is that it is crucial for Latter-day Saints to hold to the historicity-historical authenticity-of scripture, while at the same time insisting that scripture is more than mere history. And the clear warning is that blindly following naturalism and the Enlightenment when it comes to thinking about Latter-day Saint scripture will lead to a diminished faith for Latter-day Saints.

Edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, this book contains articles by Elder Alexander B. Morrison, James E. Faulconer, John Gee and Stephen D. Ricks, Paul Y. Hoskisson, Kent P. Jackson, Robert J. Matthews, Louis Midgley, Robert L. Millet, Daniel C. Peterson, John S. Tanner, and Elder Dallin H. Oaks.

...

Three of the articles (those by Jackson, Midgley, and Oaks) deal directly with the question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon - that is, whether the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be and was received as Joseph claimed it was or, if its historicity is in doubt, whether instead it could still be "true" in some moral or theological sense if its historical contents were rejected or explained away.

...

With characteristic insight, Elder Oaks points out what is at stake here: the foundation of faith for Latter-day Saints. "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived" (p. 244). The other authors who deal exclusively with the Book of Mormon offer similar perspectives.

In his article "Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon," Kent P. Jackson reviews carefully the witnesses to the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

...

Having reviewed Joseph's claims and what the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Three and Eight Witnesses say about the book, Jackson asks, "what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?" (p.137). All of this comes to a question of what one could trust if there is not a historical grounding for this book. Jackson directs his focus on the crux of the matter:

Can the Book of Mormon indeed be "true," in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events? (pp. 137-38)

The strength of Jackson's article is in its careful and detailed reasoning about the issue and why Latter-day Saints must stand by the traditional account of the Book of Mormon.

...

Midgley is rightly impatient with some Mormon philosophers and historians who urge Latter-day Saints to move away from embarrassing claims of visions, appearances, translation of plates, restorations of keys, and so on, toward a respectable theology. Such thinkers want "to make a distinction between [the Book of Mormon's] historicity and its prophetic teachings" (p. 161).

...

Paul Y. Hoskisson deals with the need for historicity, both in developing faith and in establishing obligation. Hoskisson sets out to show why critics "are wrong when they contend that historicity is not necessary to develop scriptural faith" and why it is right to maintain that "the historicity of certain central, scriptural events is necessary for there to be substance to our faith" (p. 101).

Before turning his attention to the relation of history and historical obligation, Hoskisson clarifies several things with respect to the issue of historicity and faith for the Latter-day Saints. First, "we believe that central scriptural events must be historical, but we do not require historical evidence in order to develop our faith" (p. 101). Second, though Latter-day Saints maintain the historicity of scripture, "we have no need to assert the inerrancy or all-inclusive nature of scripture, and therefore we do not feel the need to defend every tittle, jot, word, or phrase" (p. 103). Third, Latter-day Saints do not need to "accept or reject in its totality the historicity of all scripture," though it is clear that some parts of scripture "require historicity in order to add content to our faith" (p. 103).

...

Scripture's historicity is bound up, Hoskisson argues, with historical obligation. For instance, if Jesus was not actually baptized, then no requirement can be laid on us. "If, on the other hand, Christ Himself was baptized, then we cannot escape its necessity and must also be baptized" (p. 113). Similar claims can be made about other events from the many acts of Christ, to the covenant made with Abraham and the sacrifice required of him, to the death and resurrection of Christ. Take away their historicity and you take away the obligation that comes with them. At the same time, such a move takes away that which gives "content in our doctrine, substance to our faith, and reason for our hope" (p. 116).

_____

For those who disregard the historicity of The Book of Mormon (or who believe it is dismissable), I ask this: Elder Oaks apparently thinks historicity is rather important: "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived."  So can a person have faith in Christ while simultaneously rejecting Christ as an actual, historical figure? I don't think so. Rejecting the historicity of Christ renders Him as nothing more than an admirable but fictional role model, like Atticus Finch or Gandalf. A fictional Christ has no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save.

Can a person have faith in The Book of Mormon while simultaneously rejecting The Book of Mormon as to its historicity? I don't think so. Such a concept renders Joseph Smith a fraud and a liar, and the book itself a fraud and a lie. A fictional Book of Mormon has no real power, and renders it as nothing more than a quirky self-help book. It becomes no more relevant to the salvation of men than Awaken the Giant Within by Anthony Robbins or How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. These are useful books, to be sure. For some, they are even life changing.  But they are not "essential" at all.  Plenty of people get by just fine without them.  All of us will end up in the Kingdom of God, or not, without any regard to these books.  But The Book of Mormon has - by its own terms - more ambitious plans. Consider the Title Page from an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view.  It starts with "The Book of Mormon / An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon Upon the Plates of Nephi".  But "Inspired Fiction" means that there was no Mormon, hence no plates or ancestors like Nephi and Lehi.  Hence no abridgment of these records. Hence no Gold Plates. Joseph Smith lied about these plates ever existing. Or he fabricated them and then actively deceived eleven eyewitnesses with faux relics.

"Inspired Fiction" also means that the Three Witnesses lied when they testified that "that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon." Either that, or God sent an angel with fake plates to deceive the Witnesses and the millions of people who have read their testimony.  And so it goes throughout the entire text.  Reading the Title Page (or, really, any part of the book) and trying to reconcile it with the I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view is an exercise in futility. It cannot be done. If The Book of Mormon is not a historical text, if it is not describing historical events, then one cannot proceed to affirm the most important of its never-happened-because-The-Book-of-Mormon-is-not-a-historical-text events, namely, "that Christ visited the Americas."  Instead, conspiratorial lying and deception on a grand scale is, sadly, the only option for people who reject the historicity of The Book of Mormon.

Rejecting the historicity of The Book of Mormon is, to me, not compatible with accepting the text as inspired. I think Kent P. Jackson put it well: "Can the Book of Mormon indeed be 'true,' in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events?"  Consider the various statements about The Book of Mormon from leaders such as Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley:

“Our whole strength rests on the validity of [the first vision]. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud… upon that unique and wonderful experience stands the validity of this church.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, Oct. 2002)

"Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing." (Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, April 2003)

Also consider the comments of Ezra Taft Benson, as quoted by Jeffrey R. Holland:

"Let me quote a very powerful comment from President Ezra Taft Benson, who said, 'The Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it.

"'Yes, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion—the keystone of our testimony, the keystone of our doctrine, and the keystone in the witness of our Lord and Savior' (A Witness and a Warning, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1988, p. 19).

"To hear someone so remarkable say something so tremendously bold, so overwhelming in its implications, that everything in the Church—everything—rises or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and, by implication, the Prophet Joseph Smith’s account of how it came forth, can be a little breathtaking. It sounds like a 'sudden death' proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward.

"Not everything in life is so black and white, but it seems the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and its keystone role in our belief is exactly that. Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who, after seeing the Father and the Son, later beheld the angel Moroni, repeatedly heard counsel from his lips, eventually receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which he then translated according to the gift and power of God—or else he did not. And if he did not, in the spirit of President Benson’s comment, he is not entitled to retain even the reputation of New England folk hero or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, and he is not entitled to be considered a great teacher or a quintessential American prophet or the creator of great wisdom literature. If he lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he is certainly none of those." (https://www.lds.org/new-era/1995/06/true-or-false?lang=eng)

Also consider these comments from Joseph Fielding Smith:

"Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. ... If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an impostor cannot be made ...the Church stands or falls with Joseph Smith."

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:188 (http://books.google.com/books?id=jSMsAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Mormonism)

In my view, a person can be theoretically be "active" in the LDS Church and yet reject the divinity of Jesus Christ. However, such activity, such "faith," is not faith in what Jesus Christ claimed Himself to be, but rather faith that He was a good guy, that He taught some nice, useful moral axioms. But that puts Jesus Christ on par with Confucius, Sun Tzu, Anthony Robbins, Stephen Covey, Dale Carnegie, and all any number of people with good ideas and encouraging rhetoric. Helpful in a generalized, feel-good sort of way, but nothing like the Savior of the World.

So it is with the idea of being "a faithful Latter-day Saint" while rejecting The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, what Joseph Smith claimed it to be, and what all of Joseph's successors have claimed them to be. The Book of Mormon has some nice things to say, but it does nothing like what it claims: "To the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations."

Faith in Jesus Christ while rejecting His divinity is empty and ultimately meaningless (unless, of course, it is an interim step on the way toward faith in Him as the Son of God).

Faith in The Book of Mormon while rejecting its central claims about itself, rejecting Joseph Smith's claims about it, and rejecting the claims of Joseph's successors about it, is also empty and meaningless (unless, I suppose, it is an interim step toward faith in The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be).  

We are hopefully all working toward the same process described in D&C 50:24: "That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day."  So we can and should accept people who have a flawed perspective on Jesus Christ, but who remain active in the Church and strive to become better people. With time, hopefully they will develop a testimony that Jesus Christ is more than an ancient self-help guru, and that the Church is more than a social club. We should also accept people who have a flawed perspective on The Book of Mormon. Hopefully they too will accept it for what it claims to be.

However, I think fellowship cannot continue where a person evangelizes these false perspectives. I do not think that a Latter-day Saint can advocate to others that they can/should reject the divinity of Jesus Christ and still remain in good standing in the Church. I also do not think that a Latter-day Saint can advocate the rejection of the claims of The Book of Mormon, and the concomitant implicated accusations of profound fraud and deceit against Joseph Smith and all of his successors, and still remain in good standing in the Church.

The historicity of The Book of Mormon (by "historicity" I use the term in the macro "Lehi was a real person, and so where his descendants" kind of way, rather than an "Every single word in The Book of Mormon is a perfectly accurate and objective historical account" kind of way) is inextricably linked to its status as scripture, such that to reject the former is to reject the latter.  Sooner or later the folks in the historicity-is-irrelevant school of thought (or in the The-Book-of-Mormon-is-fictional-but-inspired school of thought) will, I think, find that a testimony based on such a sandy, false foundation will not stand.  

In closing, I submit that belief in The Book of Mormon is (that is, what it claims for itself) seems like something the Savior wants us to have.  Consider the Testimony of the Three Witnesses:

That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. 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. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things.

Also, consider 2 Nephi 33:10: "And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good."

Jesus also had this to say about The Book of Mormon: in D&C 1:29: "And after having received the record of the Nephites, yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., might have power to translate through the mercy of God, by the power of God, the Book of Mormon."

And this in D&C 19:26: "And again, I command thee that thou shalt not covet thine own property, but impart it freely to the printing of the Book of Mormon, which contains the truth and the word of God."

And this in D&C 20:8: "And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon."

And this in D&C 27:5: "Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim."

And this in D&C 33:16: "And the Book of Mormon and the holy scriptures are given of me for your instruction; and the power of my Spirit quickeneth all things."

And this in D&C 42:12: "And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel."

And this in D&C 84:57: "And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written."

And this in D&C 124:119: "And again, verily I say unto you, let no man pay stock to the quorum of the Nauvoo House unless he shall be a believer in the Book of Mormon, and the revelations I have given unto you, saith the Lord your God."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 5, 2015 by smac97

[Deborah]

Do I believe the events in the BOM really happened? Yes. Do i think the writers were historians? Only in the sense that any of us are historians when we write in our journals. I also keep in mind that the BOM we have is an Abridgement and so very incomplete in that sense, but Mormon abridged it over what he was inspired to write for future generations. I love the BOM. I love the doctrine as well as the stories of great prophets and fallen men and societies that rose and fell. Parallels that can be seen in modern nations and warnings of what can happen.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours 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.  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?

I agree.

What many do not understand is that what makes the difference here is the BELIEF in the historicity of the BOM

Think about that.  It is the belief that makes the difference, not what "really happened".

Suppose aliens really did land in 5,000 BCE and somehow influenced human religion ever after.  That incredibly important "fact" which really did happen is totally irrelevant because no one knows that it happened.  On the other hand, the belief that a man named Jesus lived and died 2000 years ago, and that he was the "annointed Son of God" and all that goes with it, has changed the world.  We will never know if every word of the BOM literally happened as it is written, yet what changes our lives is the BELIEF in its historicity.

Of course that does not mean for one minute that it did NOT happen as written.

I find it really alarming that so many apparently intelligent people cannot understand this distinction.  Every word we utter is a metaphor, what is important is whether or not the metaphor is a justifiable proposition that can be considered "true" for its intended use.

"Either it happened or it is a lie" is very simplistic. What changes lives is the BELIEF that it happened and was historical.  What actually happened becomes irrelevant because what really supposedly happened can never be proven or falsified anyway.  That does not make religious truth "only a metaphor"- it puts in on the same footing as other metaphors like atomic theory and quantum mechanics.

Edited December 5, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

... I believe that to reject The Book of Mormon as a "literal history" (I'm not sure how much precision to apply to that phrase) is to reject it for what it claims to be.  The Book of Mormon does not claim to be metaphor.  Or "inspired fiction" (or any other species of fiction).  

I do not think that "belief in The Book of Mormon as history" is important in and of itself. It is an abridgment. It is probably not free of cultural bias. It is missing all sort of important pieces of "history." Most of all, it is not intended to be a history book as much as a religious book.

However, I think the underlying issue is about historicity, ............................

If that is the issue, then historicity is, I think, very important......................

It can only be expected, then, that such secularized scholarship would find its way into studies of Latter-day Saint scripture, belief, and practice. A recent trend among a minority of writers has been to give an alternative reading to Latter-day scripture, seeing, for example, the Book of Mormon as an elaborate parable or as a book containing a meaningful ethics or theology, .........

Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures responds to the assertion that Latter-day Saint scripture could be in some sense meaningful even if the events and people mentioned in it were not actually real. The resounding response from those whose essays appear in this collection is that it is crucial for Latter-day Saints to hold to the historicity-historical authenticity-of scripture, while at the same time insisting that scripture is more than mere history. And the clear warning is that blindly following naturalism and the Enlightenment when it comes to thinking about Latter-day Saint scripture will lead to a diminished faith for Latter-day Saints.

....................... the question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon - that is, whether the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be and was received as Joseph claimed it was or, if its historicity is in doubt, whether instead it could still be "true" in some moral or theological sense if its historical contents were rejected or explained away.

...

With characteristic insight, Elder Oaks points out what is at stake here: the foundation of faith for Latter-day Saints. "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived" (p. 244).............................................

Midgley is rightly impatient with some Mormon philosophers and historians who urge Latter-day Saints to move away from embarrassing claims of visions, appearances, translation of plates, restorations of keys, and so on, toward a respectable theology. Such thinkers want "to make a distinction between [the Book of Mormon's] historicity and its prophetic teachings" (p. 161).

...

Paul Y. Hoskisson deals with the need for historicity, both in developing faith and in establishing obligation. Hoskisson sets out to show why critics "are wrong when they contend that historicity is not necessary to develop scriptural faith" and why it is right to maintain that "the historicity of certain central, scriptural events is necessary for there to be substance to our faith" (p. 101).

Before turning his attention to the relation of history and historical obligation, Hoskisson clarifies several things with respect to the issue of historicity and faith for the Latter-day Saints. First, "we believe that central scriptural events must be historical, but we do not require historical evidence in order to develop our faith" (p. 101). Second, though Latter-day Saints maintain the historicity of scripture, "we have no need to assert the inerrancy or all-inclusive nature of scripture, and therefore we do not feel the need to defend every tittle, jot, word, or phrase" (p. 103). Third, Latter-day Saints do not need to "accept or reject in its totality the historicity of all scripture," though it is clear that some parts of scripture "require historicity in order to add content to our faith" (p. 103).

...

Scripture's historicity is bound up, Hoskisson argues, with historical obligation. For instance, if Jesus was not actually baptized, then no requirement can be laid on us. "If, on the other hand, Christ Himself was baptized, then we cannot escape its necessity and must also be baptized" (p. 113). Similar claims can be made about other events from the many acts of Christ, to the covenant made with Abraham and the sacrifice required of him, to the death and resurrection of Christ. Take away their historicity and you take away the obligation that comes with them. At the same time, such a move takes away that which gives "content in our doctrine, substance to our faith, and reason for our hope" (p. 116).

_____

For those who disregard the historicity of The Book of Mormon (or who believe it is dismissable), ...............................

Rejecting the historicity of Christ renders Him as nothing more than an admirable but fictional role model, like Atticus Finch or Gandalf. A fictional Christ has no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save.....................

 Instead, conspiratorial lying and deception on a grand scale is, sadly, the only option for people who reject the historicity of The Book of Mormon.

Rejecting the historicity of The Book of Mormon is, to me, not compatible with accepting the text as inspired. ....................

............................ There is no middle ground.................................

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

"Not everything in life is so black and white,.......................................

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

The historicity of The Book of Mormon (by "historicity" I use the term in the macro "Lehi was a real person, and so where his descendants" kind of way, rather than an "Every single word in The Book of Mormon is a perfectly accurate and objective historical account" kind of way) is inextricably linked to its status as scripture, such that to reject the former is to reject the latter.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

As professor Rust has pointed out, the Book of Mormon is a metaphor.  It does not claim to be a metaphor.

You go on at great, unnecessary length, smac, making arguments which are quite beside the point.

B. H. Roberts did not hesitate to invite secular scholarship to examine the Book of Mormon in every way possible.  There is nothing wrong with that, nor with any unwelcome conclusions which they might reach.  Roberts insisted that they have a right to do their secular inquiry.  He knew that the book would hold up under the most searching critical examination.

You appear to have confused history with historicity.  In his recent book, Traditions of the Fathers (Kofford, 2015), Brant Gardner uses the subtitle The Book of Mormon as History.  By that subtitle, Gardner does not mean that the Book of Mormon is a piece of professional historiography, but rather that he examines its historicity.  He uses all the secular learning at his command to critically examine the BofM, including some revisionist understanding of parts of it.

You cite religious educators to the effect that it is crucial to have faith in a real Jesus, one who was in fact baptized and resurrected from the dead, without however telling them that we have no secular evidence that Jesus was baptized nor that he was resurrected.

You come down hard on fictional and real characters who may preach another Gospel, without bothering to reflect on the power of their lives, and certainly missing the point which Joseph Smith himself saw in other religions (he thought that we could accept truth regardless of the source).  Thus, figures as powerful as Gandhi and Mother Teresa appeal to us precisely because they are so authentic.  Their lives have real meaning.  Just so, fictional characters can have a powerful appeal as well.  Indeed, many a novel is praised for being more realistic and having more verisimilitude than many a dry secular historical account.

You need to think more broadly and expansively about these matters, smac.  We Mormons need the open-eyed courage of B. H. Roberts, and the tenacious learning of Hugh Nibley.  Nothing less.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

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

I agree that history as a modern discipline, although evolving and carried out with varying (and sometimes conflicting and contradicting) approaches and interpretations is not the same discipline (if the writers used any at all) that resulted in the source material for the Book of Mormon (whether that is Moroni's abridgement, the works he studied, or Joseph's translation). Those who write source material are almost never historians, and even those who were are hardly so from most modern scholars' perspectives (especially the further back we go). But I don't see the poor quality of historical accounting (I think it was Elder Oaks that said it is not a history book) negating the essence of history that supports the testimony of very real interactions between God and man, and how that plays out in mortal affairs through time.

At least Elder Oaks understands that the Book of Mormon is not a history book, and it was not meant as such.  Many readers get confused when told that Gen 1 - 3 is not history, but rather symbolic ritual which is set in a temple -- this from non-Mormon scholars who look closely at such things (like Tom Wright).  Mormons tend to flail about tilting at windmills, as though in defense of the faith.  There is a better way.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Maybe so, but that is just what I am doing.  To confuse the two very separate endeavors is fatal, IMHO.  Even Herodotus doesn't pass muster.  Otherwise we will forever confuse modern historiography with ancient annals and scribal activity.  They are just not the same, and must be treated very differently.

I totally agree.

What matters to us today is .... well, what matters to us today. 

We are now aware of the logic of "language games" and how truth is defined by communication within accepted norms of a given community.  The ancients are no longer a part of our community in general much less a part of the various present communities who define these issues today.  The discussion it seems, then becomes no more than a semantic issue.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

But I believe that to reject The Book of Mormon as a "literal history" (I'm not sure how much precision to apply to that phrase) is to reject it for what it claims to be.

And that degree of precision is all we are discussing, which leaves it all quite open, doesn't it?  The minute you question what you have questioned here, you have opened it all up to interpretation.  If you are "not sure", certainly none of us are either.  The reason is of course because that phrase "literal history" is undefinable.

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

For those who disregard the historicity of The Book of Mormon (or who believe it is dismissable), I ask this: Elder Oaks apparently thinks historicity is rather important: "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived."  So can a person have faith in Christ while simultaneously rejecting Christ as an actual, historical figure? I don't think so. Rejecting the historicity of Christ renders Him as nothing more than an admirable but fictional role model, like Atticus Finch or Gandalf. A fictional Christ has no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save.

True enough.  Yet I can and do BELIEVE this "really happened" with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.  That is what makes the difference.  The BELIEF that it "really happened" is what counts.  All the stories written by every "historian"- however that is defined- become irrelevant to my belief. 

And indeed it is FAITH and the belief in God's grace that finally saves me and sets me free by knowing I am forgiven after all I can do.

I know that is true because my heart tells me that- I don't need the opinion or story of anyone else.  What makes Christ a force in my life is my own heart, and it has nothing to do with anything a historian says or doesn't say.

"Historicity" of scripture is itself a religious belief, and indeed I affirm it as such.

Edited December 5, 2015 by mfbukowski

[volgadon]

Elder Nelson, not Oaks.

[The Nehor]

Jesus appears to lots of people and actively demonstrates his physical nature after the resurrection and making a big deal about how important it is that they know he lives again in a physical body and it is recorded in the founding scriptures of the faith. Most Christian faiths believe he is incorporeal.

Joseph gets literal plates and shows them to people in both religious and mundane circumstances. An angel testifies that they are authentic. Mormons try to argue it is all metaphor.

I just imagine God banging his (literal) head against the wall wondering if it is possible to convince his children of anything.