BoM as metaphor

[stemelbow]

On ‎12‎/‎4‎/‎2015‎ ‎1‎:‎16‎:‎03‎, CV75 said:

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?

for the record, my argument is not, the BoM is not historical.  That was not the case.  Only that I think it possible for a believer to accept a more metaphorical explanation of the scripture itself.  The whether it is actual history is a side note.  While I see the argument that the book doesn't present us with good history, I have no intention to argue the Book can't in anyway be seen as an account of history.  Hope that helps.

[Kevin Christensen]

Alma (in 32) tells his listeners that they cannot know the truth of his words for certain all at once, but invites them to start with whatever portion they find most promising upon which to perform their experiment.  If that portion happens to be metaphoric, or literary, that is up to them.  I've pointed this out in print in the Review (7/2) and in Sunstone in the past.

But approaching the Book of Mormon as 19th century fiction, even as inspired fiction, makes a difference in the way a reader contextualizes the book (Mark Thomas' Digging in Cumorah is a good example), and therefore, makes for a different book.  And the difference context makes to reading can only be found by reading in that context.  For me, that has been the ongoing lesson of the historicity school of readers.  Nibley, Welch, Sorenson, Tvedtnes, Gardner, and hundreds of others, including me, have found that contextualizing properly changes the book.  As 2 Nephi 25 declares, we can't read the words of the Jews properly, understanding as they did, unless we are taught after their manner.

A very good example is Thomas's chapter on "Dying Heretics" compared to Welch's Legal Cases of the Book of Mormon.  Thomas, riffing on a shallow complaint from the Roberts' study argues that the stories of Sherem, Nehor, and Korihor amount to shallow, flat stereo types.  Welch demonstrates the important differences that emerge in a legal context.  For that matter, Thomas claims to be applying Robert Alter's notion of Type scenes to recover what the book meant to its original 19th century audience.  He doesn't consider that Alter's techniques were not used by anyone in the 19th century audience, and that for historicity-readers, the ancient audience and narrators were an authentic and meaningful context.  And for that matter, Alter observes that variations in patterns are important, which suggests to me that Thomas' too narrowly defines the field of comparison.  If he had considered the varied reactions to liminal encounter, not the just dying heretics that bore him, he'd have to include Laman and Lemuel (who don't die when dismissing their angel), and Zeezrom and Alma the Elder who convert based on testimony alone and don't die, among others.

Fictional characters such as King Lear and Harry Potter and Huckleberry Finn can and do convey important and useful truths, and historical characters can become types, patterns, and metaphors, and can use such.  They can be spiritually helpful, but are not binding in the way in which historicity is.  I read many years ago (from Nibley and others) that the root of the word religion is common with ligament, which essentially hold our bodies together.  Historicity binds me, and invites me to take my covenants and community and contextually-enhanced readings much more seriously than pretty stories do.  I can't reconcile my own comparisons of Alma's conversion with NDE research or of Barker's First Temple Theology with any "inspired fiction" approach to the Book of Mormon, let alone, any "conscious or unconscious fraud" approach.  Indeed, the worth of any metaphor is in how successfully it points to and enlightens my mind with respect to the realities to which it directs my attention.  Harry Potter is not just entertaining, but a type of Christ, and patterns of reconciliation and at-one-ment are prominent themes throughout.   Harry is not binding, nor is Lear, nor is Huck.  But at times, their stories do point to Christ who is binding for me. 

Our scriptures tells us of patterns in all things, and that the most urgent and meaningful patterns witness the reality of Christ.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

 

Edited December 7, 2015 by Kevin Christensen
typo, as usual

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On Friday at 3:08 pm, in this thread, I said the following, with which you seem to disagree, without any foundation:

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, 1997), 4.

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

Aside from that mistake (you need to read Rust), once again you have gone on at far too great a length, and actually accomplished nothing for it, except to repeat yourself.

It may be, at the same time, that I am responsible for you completely misunderstanding me, but your inability to adequately understand the life's work of Roberts and Nibley is a real problem.  It seems to me that you grievously miss the point, but that might just be fiction . . .  

I'm not sure civil discourse is in the cards here.  So I will withdraw from further communication with you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

for the record, my argument is not, the BoM is not historical.  That was not the case.  Only that I think it possible for a believer to accept a more metaphorical explanation of the scripture itself.  The whether it is actual history is a side note.  While I see the argument that the book doesn't present us with good history, I have no intention to argue the Book can't in anyway be seen as an account of history.  Hope that helps.

I agree it is possible for a believer to see the Book of Mormon record of events, people and places as metaphors. But it seems to me that metaphors carry far less weight and make a shallower impression than do real events, and often refer to real events. Jacob 5 for example makes a deeper impression when taken in context of the historical scattering of Israel (and her prophesied gathering and restoration) than it does as an ode to the longsuffering of the Lord and His servants.

An actual gathering and restoration cannot occur without an actual scattering, actual divine intervention and actual hard work. The scattering was historical; the gathering and restoration at the time of Zenos were future history answering to that earlier history, which answered to an even earlier history. Now perhaps some take the scattering, gathering and restoration as metaphorical, but I think this limits one's focus to doing only whatever he feels metaphorically motivated to do.

I think this is where Elder Holland was going in this talk: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/where-justice-love-and-mercy-meet?lang=eng “…we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death …without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden…”

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Alma (in 32) tells his listeners that they cannot know the truth of his words for certain all at once, but invites them to start with whatever portion they find most promising upon which to perform their experiment.  If that portion happens to be metaphoric, or literary, that is up to them.  I've pointed this out in print in the Review (7/2) and in Sunstone in the past.

But approaching the Book of Mormon as 19th century fiction, even as inspired fiction, makes a difference in the way a reader contextualizes the book (Mark Thomas' Digging in Cumorah is a good example), and therefore, makes for a different book.  And the difference context makes to reading can only be found by reading in that context.  For me, that has been the ongoing lesson of the historicity school of readers.  Nibley, Welch, Sorenson, Tvedtnes, Gardner, and hundreds of others, including me, have found that contextualizing properly changes the book.  As 2 Nephi 25 declares, we can't read the words of the Jews properly, understanding as they did, unless we are taught after their manner.

A very good example is Thomas's chapter on "Dying Heretics" compared to Welch's Legal Cases of the Book of Mormon.  Thomas, riffing on a shallow complaint from the Roberts' study argues that the stories of Sherem, Nehor, and Korihor amount to shallow, flat stereo types.  Welch demonstrates the important differences that emerge in a legal context.  For that matter, Thomas claims to be applying Robert Alter's notion of Type scenes to recover what the book meant to its original 19th century audience.  He doesn't consider that Alter's techniques were not used by anyone in the 19th century audience, and that for historicity-readers, the ancient audience and narrators were an authentic and meaningful context.  And for that matter, Alter observes that variations in patterns are important, which suggests to me that Thomas' too narrowly defines the field of comparison.  If he had considered the varied reactions to liminal encounter, not the just dying heretics that bore him, he'd have to include Laman and Lemuel (who don't die when dismissing their angel), and Zeereom and Alma the Elder who convert based on testimony alone and don't die, among others.

Fictional characters such as King Lear and Harry Potter and Huckleberry Finn can and do convey important and useful truths, and historical characters can become types, patterns, and metaphors, and can use such.  They can be spiritually helpful, but are not binding in the way in which historicity is.  I read many years ago (from Nibley and others) that the root of the word religion is common with ligament, which essentially hold our bodies together.  Historicity binds me, and invites me to take my covenants and community and contextually-enhanced readings much more seriously than pretty stories do.  I can't reconcile my own comparisons of Alma's conversion with NDE research or of Barker's First Temple Theology with any "inspired fiction" approach to the Book of Mormon, let alone, any "conscious or unconscious fraud" approach.  Indeed, the worth of any metaphor is in how successfully it points to and enlightens my mind with respect to the realities to which it directs my attention.  Harry Potter is not just entertaining, but a type of Christ, and patterns of reconciliation and at-one-ment are prominent themes throughout.   Harry is not binding, nor is Lear, nor is Huck.  But at times, their stories do point to Christ who is binding for me. 

Our scriptures tells us of patterns in all things, and that the most urgent and meaningful patterns witness the reality of Christ.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

 

I've been treating arguments that "The Book of Mormon is a metaphor" as A) functionally equivalent to "The Book of Mormon is 'inspired fiction'" and B) as antithetical to The Book of Mormon having historicity.  A historical figure or event can also function as a metaphor, such that Moses raising up the brazen serpent was both an actual historical event, while also functioning as a metaphor for the crucifixion of the Savior.  Likewise, the Liahona was both an actual, physical object and also a metaphor for spiritual guidance.  

It is a separate matter, however, to suggest that the Liahona is purely metaphorical, purely figurative.  That it never really existed because Lehi and his family never existed, because The Book of Mormon is "inspired fiction".  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

On 12/4/2015, 8:17:03, CV75 said:

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

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").

 

The very specific prophecies of the BOM had already been fulfilled at the time of publication, and the rest are probably more open to interpretation. In any case, prophesy doesn't need to be fixed to a particular historical context to have value - neither do spiritual teachings. 

Picture your favorite conference talk. Now imagine that it had been presented as the teachings of an ancient prophet who lived on the Australian continent in 500 BC. Does that talk suddenly become more valuable or relevant?

Good teachings are good teachings, IMO. 

Regarding whether or not the Lord is "allegorical", I seem to recall that Jesus spoke almost exclusively in parables. Those who have ears, let them hear. 

 

 

 

[Gray]

On 12/4/2015, 8:20:10, smac97 said:

"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.

...

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

Thanks for your thoughts, Smac. Unfortunately I won't have enough time to put as much effort into a response as you put into your post.

I'm not sure I buy the comparison of the BOM to Jesus. Jesus is believed to have performed a redemptive action on behalf of humankind. I'm not sure we can say the same of Lehi or Nephi. The importance of Lehi and Nephi was that they had a spiritual message to share. I'm not sure how that message is any less important if the author is different. 

It's a fair question, what of the plates, witnesses, etc? I'm not terribly bothered by that either. There have been many witnesses to appearances of the virgin Mary, probably most of the witnesses are sincere. We can speculate or worry about whether or not people were deceived for fraudulent or letting their minds play tricks on them. In the end it doesn't matter. Wherever there is the human element, things get messy. The Bible doesn't talk about prophets as perfect heroes, I'm not sure why we have to expect that of modern prophets. 

When we understand scripture more realistically, as a human product rather than a divine one, these kinds of concerns melt away. Fundamentalism creates the dichotomy between total fraud and one true church, which is why so many people regard the church as a fraud when they lose their faith. They feel that way because they're still fundamentalists. But fundamentalism is hardly the only way to approach Mormonism and scripture. Either the teachings have value or they don't. Getting wrapped up in how the story got to you is a great way to miss the point of the story entirely.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

Clearly the BOM goes beyond meta-four.

Maybe meta-seven or something like that.

That puts it beyond metaphys-six.

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

The very specific prophecies of the BOM had already been fulfilled at the time of publication, and the rest are probably more open to interpretation. In any case, prophesy doesn't need to be fixed to a particular historical context to have value - neither do spiritual teachings. 

Picture your favorite conference talk. Now imagine that it had been presented as the teachings of an ancient prophet who lived on the Australian continent in 500 BC. Does that talk suddenly become more valuable or relevant?

Good teachings are good teachings, IMO. 

Regarding whether or not the Lord is "allegorical", I seem to recall that Jesus spoke almost exclusively in parables. Those who have ears, let them hear. 

What about the prophecies fulfilled after its publication, as I said last Friday? http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66560-bom-as-metaphor/?do=findComment&comment=1209566576 I recommend you find and read through that thread. Things like small dominions of saints, wars and rumors of wars, secret combinations, the mountain of the Lord’s house, many believing the words of the book, commencing the work among all nations (the gentiles first), the gathering in Palestine, Jews believing in Christ, etc.

That a prophecy of a future event in the Book of Mormon (or any other scripture) could possibly come out of nowhere (do you have an example?), does not mean that prophesied events are not tied to prior events. Please provide an example of a foretold event that arises from a reference to an allegory or metaphor that identify as such.

Of course people are also free to believe Jesus is an allegory as well, but that is a separate discussion.

I see that you won't answer my questions, which kind of throws water on this conversation.

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Clearly the BOM goes beyond meta-four.

Maybe meta-seven or something like that.

That puts it beyond metaphys-six.

 

Some may need a meta-mucil or a phy-six to help them understand the difference.

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What about the prophecies fulfilled after its publication, as I said last Friday? http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66560-bom-as-metaphor/?do=findComment&comment=1209566576 I recommend you find and read through that thread. Things like small dominions of saints, wars and rumors of wars, secret combinations, the mountain of the Lord’s house, many believing the words of the book, commencing the work among all nations (the gentiles first), the gathering in Palestine, Jews believing in Christ, etc.

That a prophecy of a future event in the Book of Mormon (or any other scripture) could possibly come out of nowhere (do you have an example?), does not mean that prophesied events are not tied to prior events. Please provide an example of a foretold event that arises from a reference to an allegory or metaphor that identify as such.

Of course people are also free to believe Jesus is an allegory as well, but that is a separate discussion.

I see that you won't answer my questions, which kind of throws water on this conversation.

These prophesies work as a kind of Rorschach test. Their value is that they help frame the world from a certain point of view. What they can't do is predict actual concrete events with any degree of accuracy. They're an interpretive tool, not a predictive tool. I think it should go without saying that know one can know the future for sure.

 

 

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Regarding whether or not the Lord is "allegorical", I seem to recall that Jesus spoke almost exclusively in parables. Those who have ears, let them hear. 

And Jesus said he did that to conceal the truth from people, i.e. the bulk of his listeners were spiritual idiots.

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

These prophesies work as a kind of Rorschach test. Their value is that they help frame the world from a certain point of view. What they can't do is predict actual concrete events with any degree of accuracy. They're an interpretive tool, not a predictive tool. I think it should go without saying that know one can know the future for sure.

 

 

 

We will see. Some of the Second Coming stuff is pretty concrete. There are also some geopolitical prophecies in the Book of Mormon. I count three and expect to see one in the next 50 years or so.

Also it goes without saying that I do know the future for sure.

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, Gray said:

These prophesies work as a kind of Rorschach test. Their value is that they help frame the world from a certain point of view. What they can't do is predict actual concrete events with any degree of accuracy. They're an interpretive tool, not a predictive tool. I think it should go without saying that know one can know the future for sure

 

LOL I'm sure you see them that way. "Whatever" You pretty much lost me when you opted not to answer my last 2 questions.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I've been treating arguments that "The Book of Mormon is a metaphor" as A) functionally equivalent to "The Book of Mormon is 'inspired fiction'" and B) as antithetical to The Book of Mormon having historicity.  A historical figure or event can also function as a metaphor, such that Moses raising up the brazen serpent was both an actual historical event, while also functioning as a metaphor for the crucifixion of the Savior.  Likewise, the Liahona was both an actual, physical object and also a metaphor for spiritual guidance.  

It is a separate matter, however, to suggest that the Liahona is purely metaphorical, purely figurative.  That it never really existed because Lehi and his family never existed, because The Book of Mormon is "inspired fiction".  

Thanks,

-Smac

I think certainty that such people and things did NOT exist takes more faith than believing in them.  It's the old "you can't prove a negative" problem.  That is crudely stated but expresses the problem in as few words, I think, as is possible.  I can't recall anyone taking that position but I am sure someone has.

On the other hand, since you can understand that the brazen serpent functions both as an actual historical event AND as a metaphor for the crucifixion of Christ, I would ask you if you can "back it up" one more level as an intellectual exercise.

While retaining the firm belief that there really WAS a Moses who really did raise up a brazen serpent, can you see that the story itself could be a metaphor which functions to achieve the same purpose, without being "fiction"?

Suppose the prophet's name was "Fred" and what he raised was a cross, for example IN THE STORY found in the Bible?

The writer of the new story of Fred and the cross got the name and the object wrong, but the salient points of it being about a prophet who raised a symbol of Christ and healed people with it, being the important points.

Is that now "fiction" even though it really happened but the author misreported some details?

Edited December 7, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

50 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And Jesus said he did that to conceal the truth from people, i.e. the bulk of his listeners were spiritual idiots.

And if we regard scripture as one long series of teachings of Jesus, we can conclude that taking the stories literally is _____________

 

Edited December 7, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We will see. Some of the Second Coming stuff is pretty concrete. There are also some geopolitical prophecies in the Book of Mormon. I count three and expect to see one in the next 50 years or so.

Also it goes without saying that I do know the future for sure.

It's considered cheating to consult the oracles Azathoth about the future. 

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

And if we regard scripture as one long series of teachings of Jesus, we can conclude that taking the stories literally is _____________

 

A compliment from him that he does not think us idiots?

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's considered cheating to consult the oracles Azathoth about the future. 

Azathoth is a blind idiot God of chaos. One would do better consulting one of the thousand forms of his servant Nyarlathotep.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

A compliment from him that he does not think us idiots?

Sure, but how likely is that, considering that we're a bunch of barely evolved apes? 

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Azathoth is a blind idiot God of chaos. One would do better consulting one of the thousand forms of his servant Nyarlathotep.

My mistake! Truly you have proven yourself worthy of the honor of being devoured first at his coming. 

[halconero]

On 12/6/2015, 3:34:56, Valentinus said:

Marcus Borg discusses this in his book, "Reading the Bible Again he First Time". 

Sigh

No money...

[Gervin]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Clearly the BOM goes beyond meta-four.

Maybe meta-seven or something like that.

That puts it beyond metaphys-six.

 

Would you kindly respond to my CFR or retract your unfounded assertion?  Thanks!

[Gervin]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That's pretty interesting.  But the question remains, must the existence of the plates, the testimony of them, require us to view the story as history rather than metaphor?  I tend to think a believer can have either view.  I'm not sure the reason we demand that all believers must accept it as history, type of thinking.

The problem as I see it is that the book claims, and the church endorses, historical setting and events; from the introductions of the book and chapters to the very verses.  The book is laid out as (various) chronologies.  It claims first person authorship, it claims veracity of recorded events.  The editor(s) maintained these claims.  There is a little for metaphorical interpretation.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/5/2015, 11:49:27, Gervin said:

Who actually believes or teaches this?  CFR.

Sure.

It took me at least 30 seconds.

http://www.prevailmagazine.org/how-archaeology-proves-the-bible/
http://www.icr.org/article/102/303/

Here's two of many sites which maintain that historical evidence "proves" religious belief.  From the second.
 

Quote

 

Why should anyone—how could anyone—spurn such divine love and reject the salvation purchased so dearly by Christ and offered so freely to us? The evidence for its truth and validity is overwhelming.

Christians sometimes sing: "I know He lives—He lives within my heart." That also may be a sort of evidence, especially when that testimony is multiplied in the hearts of multitudes of other believers. But the solid, historical evidence of His bodily resurrection after dying for our sins is itself absolute and impregnable. Unique in all history, it really happened, so we can in full confidence entrust our very souls to Him.