BoM as metaphor

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

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

So many people are just cultural Mythos worshippers these days.

[Gervin]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

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.
 

 

The first link absolutely doesn't maintain that archaeological evidence proves religious belief.  

In the second (quoted) link the author incorrectly states that the resurrection has been proven historically, but nowhere does he say, as you claim, that belief should be predicated on this (alleged) historical event.  [You claimed that people It is sad to think that "because Jerusalem exists, [people] must be "saved" by the person "Jesus" because both words occur in the Bible, therefore the entire bible is proven "true" including its religious content."]

You've not shown that any church, pastor or leader teaches this or that anyone believes as you claim.  Your strawman collapses.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Clearly the BOM goes beyond meta-four.

Maybe meta-seven or something like that.

That puts it beyond metaphys-six.

 

So is it metempsychosis that should be our focus?  Is the BofM merely an avatar of something else?

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So is it metempsychosis that should be our focus?  Is the BofM merely an avatar of something else?

Bravo, an inspired couplet!

Metempsychosis is the focus when the sacred opus

Is an avatar for another repertoire

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, Gervin said:

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.

This would be a problem for all of scripture since the same is true of the Bible.  Just to be clear.  I agree, that is a problem.  But since I also accept the Bible to be scripture and suffers from this problem, I also can accept the BoM to be scripture.  Perhaps between you and I, we disagree too much about what is scripture to leap into this discussion. 

 

Maybe scripture means something, maybe it does not. 

[stemelbow]

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

But scripture is chock full of metaphors often spoken as if they were history.  The whole genre of scripture seems far more concerned about telling us mythical stories bent to the authors purposes than it does telling us exactly what happened. 

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

Maybe.  But, I fail to see how it matters so much.  Who was Israel after hundreds of years anyway?  A bunch of people who shared genealogical relations, a group of people who shared similar DNA makeups?  It seems to me these days, if you can possibly be found to be a descendant of one tribe of Israel it'd be likely you'd be a descendant of another, and another, and another--you'd likely be a descendant of all if one.  That's how populations seem to work.  Over enough time, people become inter-related.  Their DNA carries similar attributes.  Add to that the notion that anyone can be adopted in without problem, and that's considered the gathering of Israel, one wonders what that literally means or has to do with anything. 

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

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…”

This thread was started because someone made the statement, essentially, that a believer can't consider the story of the BoM as metaphor.  One has to take it seriously as history.  There's no middle ground.  This position by you and Elder Holland is the same.  The problem with both, in my mind, is neither seems to argue why their claim.  They just say it and leave it at their word.  It'd be nice if we're trying to draw clear lines which people should not cross, to be able to explain our reasoning.  This thread has gone on for a few pages and no one has even addressed the why.  I've heard repeats of the statement, but no reasoning why we must.  This position seems to do the same thing, and I'm not sure discussing it for pages is going to change that. 

[CV75]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

But scripture is chock full of metaphors often spoken as if they were history.  The whole genre of scripture seems far more concerned about telling us mythical stories bent to the authors purposes than it does telling us exactly what happened.

That’s why I think it reasonable to allow the Book of Mormon the same consideration for historicity (however little or much) as the Bible if we are going to use the Bible as a standard for the likelihood of its being a scripture containing both history and metaphor.

But if not, let’s compare your assertion that scripture is “mythical stories bent to the authors purposes” versus say scripture is “…given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…,” and is “the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” I don’t think it very reasonable to conclude that God excludes historical references from such communications (or that He has no historical place Himself in the affairs of His children or in His communications to His children), and that the scriptures are typified to be bent mythical stories.

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Maybe.  But, I fail to see how it matters so much.  Who was Israel after hundreds of years anyway?  A bunch of people who shared genealogical relations, a group of people who shared similar DNA makeups?  It seems to me these days, if you can possibly be found to be a descendant of one tribe of Israel it'd be likely you'd be a descendant of another, and another, and another--you'd likely be a descendant of all if one.  That's how populations seem to work.  Over enough time, people become inter-related.  Their DNA carries similar attributes.  Add to that the notion that anyone can be adopted in without problem, and that's considered the gathering of Israel, one wonders what that literally means or has to do with anything. 

I think it matters because “people” is how people got here, and people transmitted everything else people have today and will have. Nothing in the way of history, relics of history (any product of the human hand, however inspired or profan), or restored religious authority arose from a vacuum. The redemption of the dead and sealing power shows that every person who ever lived (and they are each non-metaphorical) in the human family chain matters. It matters because Deity is a People with history.

We all know why history is important.

How do you go about explaining your presence in the world, or explaining to your children where they came from? The practice of scripture writing began with a family's book of remembrance. How many of your personal and family's histories contain inspired writing and testimony?

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

This thread was started because someone made the statement, essentially, that a believer can't consider the story of the BoM as metaphor.  One has to take it seriously as history.  There's no middle ground.  This position by you and Elder Holland is the same.  The problem with both, in my mind, is neither seems to argue why their claim.  They just say it and leave it at their word.  It'd be nice if we're trying to draw clear lines which people should not cross, to be able to explain our reasoning.  This thread has gone on for a few pages and no one has even addressed the why.  I've heard repeats of the statement, but no reasoning why we must.  This position seems to do the same thing, and I'm not sure discussing it for pages is going to change that. 

I think a statement such as "a believer can't consider the story of the BoM as metaphor" does not represent my views. I've already said that I agree that such is not the case, as recently as the very post to which you responded!

I don’t think Elder Holland’s quote or my posts disallow a “middle ground,” but they do point out specific instances where metaphor is less actual—by definition!—and therefore less spiritually profitable for bringing the heavenly and earthly together than is sharing the experience of actual people, places and events committed to your spiritual well-being, whether that experience comes first-hand or from reading or hearing.

Do you wish to be saved as an individual or exalted as a complete family? Did your family begin just a few generations ago, or thousands of years ago? Which is more historical? Is any of it metaphorical?

Edited December 8, 2015 by CV75

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

....scripture is chock full of metaphors often spoken as if they were history.  The whole genre of scripture seems far more concerned about telling us mythical stories bent to the authors purposes than it does telling us exactly what happened. 

No so.  Scripture is not a genre.  However, Scripture is filled with all of the known literary genres -- poetry, parable, allegory, myth, metaphor, legislation, epistle, narrative, oracular speech, liturgy, genealogy, etc. -- to fulfill the purpose of each author.  As you suggest, a major question should be "Why?"

.............................  Who was Israel after hundreds of years anyway?  A bunch of people who shared genealogical relations, a group of people who shared similar DNA makeups?  It seems to me these days, if you can possibly be found to be a descendant of one tribe of Israel it'd be likely you'd be a descendant of another, and another, and another--you'd likely be a descendant of all if one.  That's how populations seem to work.  Over enough time, people become inter-related.  Their DNA carries similar attributes.  Add to that the notion that anyone can be adopted in without problem, and that's considered the gathering of Israel, one wonders what that literally means or has to do with anything. 

The gathering of Israel is far more specific and well-defined than you credit.  Both the Jews of the State of Israel and the Mormons have separately shown what that means in rather literal terms.  It has all been laid out in prophecy in both Bible and Book of Mormon.

This thread was started because someone made the statement, essentially, that a believer can't consider the story of the BoM as metaphor.  One has to take it seriously as history.  There's no middle ground.  This position by you and Elder Holland is the same.  The problem with both, in my mind, is neither seems to argue why their claim.  They just say it and leave it at their word.  It'd be nice if we're trying to draw clear lines which people should not cross, to be able to explain our reasoning.  This thread has gone on for a few pages and no one has even addressed the why.  I've heard repeats of the statement, but no reasoning why we must.  This position seems to do the same thing, and I'm not sure discussing it for pages is going to change that. 

When Elder Holland says that there was a real Adam and Eve, he is not saying that their story cannot be told in figurative language, or that their actual names are "Adam" and "Eve," or that Eve was actually made from the man's "rib."  The Brethren have stated repeatedly that such language is figurative and symbolic, and non-Mormon scholars affirm that the entire biblical Creation & Garden story is liturgical ritual within a "temple text."  That a true story can be expressed in metaphorical form does in no sense deny that it is a true story.  Metaphor is merely a tool in the vast toolbox of literati and prophets.  They are free to use them when and how they wish, just as Jesus himself felt free to use parables.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/7/2015 at 9:57 AM, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

You need to man up, smac, and take reproof with good grace.  See my comment on page 5 of this thread,  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66560-bom-as-metaphor/?page=5 .  You are not the only one who does not get the point.

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Gervin said:

The first link absolutely doesn't maintain that archaeological evidence proves religious belief.  

In the second (quoted) link the author incorrectly states that the resurrection has been proven historically, but nowhere does he say, as you claim, that belief should be predicated on this (alleged) historical event.  [You claimed that people It is sad to think that "because Jerusalem exists, [people] must be "saved" by the person "Jesus" because both words occur in the Bible, therefore the entire bible is proven "true" including its religious content."]

You've not shown that any church, pastor or leader teaches this or that anyone believes as you claim.  Your strawman collapses.

 Uh huh.  Suit yourself. Most here understand the principle that history doesn't prove religion. That was the point.  If you don't see that there is not much I can do to help you with that.

Read some of my past posts to Rob Bowman on that. This was the shorthand version of that. My reply to you was a metaphor.  I know you don't understand metaphors obviously so there's not much point to discussing it further.

Edited December 8, 2015 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No so.  Scripture is not a genre.  However, Scripture is filled with all of the known literary genres -- poetry, parable, allegory, myth, metaphor, legislation, epistle, narrative, oracular speech, liturgy, genealogy, etc. -- to fulfill the purpose of each author.  As you suggest, a major question should be "Why?"

I agree and realize my use of the word genre doesn't work here.  My mistake

Quote

The gathering of Israel is far more specific and well-defined than you credit.  Both the Jews of the State of Israel and the Mormons have separately shown what that means in rather literal terms.  It has all been laid out in prophecy in both Bible and Book of Mormon.

Well I'd need some serious catching up to understand how the specifics relate to the real world.  My point is suggesting we simply can't identify one person who can be considered authentically from the tribes of Israel.  Add to that the notion that anyone can be adopted in, it seems to amount to weird attempts to make ancient scripture more meaningful.  I'm actually cool with that if that's how people view it.  But, alas, sadly, we can't determine people's ancestry that far back, with any degree of certainty. 

Quote

When Elder Holland says that there was a real Adam and Eve, he is not saying that their story cannot be told in figurative language, or that their actual names are "Adam" and "Eve," or that Eve was actually made from the man's "rib."  The Brethren have stated repeatedly that such language is figurative and symbolic, and non-Mormon scholars affirm that the entire biblical Creation & Garden story is liturgical ritual within a "temple text."  That a true story can be expressed in metaphorical form does in no sense deny that it is a true story.  Metaphor is merely a tool in the vast toolbox of literati and prophets.  They are free to use them when and how they wish, just as Jesus himself felt free to use parables.

Well there ya go.  I agree for the most part and really appreciate the precision in which you state this.  I'd add, though in disagreement with Elder Holland, anyone can view Adam and Eve as not actual people and still be believers.  It's possible to think not only the stories we hear about them to be metaphor, and the way the events are expressed are done so in metaphor, but many would question their existence, and yet still feel quite compelled by the scriptural story.  

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

That’s why I think it reasonable to allow the Book of Mormon the same consideration for historicity (however little or much) as the Bible if we are going to use the Bible as a standard for the likelihood of its being a scripture containing both history and metaphor.

I don't disagree. 

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

But if not, let’s compare your assertion that scripture is “mythical stories bent to the authors purposes” versus say scripture is “…given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…,” and is “the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” I don’t think it very reasonable to conclude that God excludes historical references from such communications (or that He has no historical place Himself in the affairs of His children or in His communications to His children), and that the scriptures are typified to be bent mythical stories.

I'm not sure there's a comparison to make.  Not only is it possible that many stories in the bible are based off of myth, but if they are, it's also possible scripture is "...given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…,” and is “the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.”

I don't see conflict there. 

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think it matters because “people” is how people got here, and people transmitted everything else people have today and will have. Nothing in the way of history, relics of history (any product of the human hand, however inspired or profan), or restored religious authority arose from a vacuum. The redemption of the dead and sealing power shows that every person who ever lived (and they are each non-metaphorical) in the human family chain matters. It matters because Deity is a People with history.

We all know why history is important.

I can agree for the most part.  The issue is the telling of history.  Once we put history to paper we introduce problems are errors. 

 

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

How do you go about explaining your presence in the world, or explaining to your children where they came from? The practice of scripture writing began with a family's book of remembrance. How many of your personal and family's histories contain inspired writing and testimony?

I'd agree, in a very real way personal and family histories are scripture. 

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think a statement such as "a believer can't consider the story of the BoM as metaphor" does not represent my views. I've already said that I agree that such is not the case, as recently as the very post to which you responded!

My apologies.  I did not mean to suggest you did. 

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don’t think Elder Holland’s quote or my posts disallow a “middle ground,” but they do point out specific instances where metaphor is less actual—by definition!—and therefore less spiritually profitable for bringing the heavenly and earthly together than is sharing the experience of actual people, places and events committed to your spiritual well-being, whether that experience comes first-hand or from reading or hearing.

I'm not so sure. 

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Do you wish to be saved as an individual or exalted as a complete family? Did your family begin just a few generations ago, or thousands of years ago? Which is more historical? Is any of it metaphorical?

I think what we'll be faced with is that we'll all see breaks in our family lines.  We'll all see the splitting of these lines that really go vertically and horizontally.  I say that because not all will be exalted.  It'll be a sad day for us all, I'm sure. 

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure there's a comparison to make.  Not only is it possible that many stories in the bible are based off of myth, but if they are, it's also possible scripture is "...given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…,” and is “the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.”

I don't see conflict there.

There is inherent conflict in the belief that the Book of Mormon is a metaphorical testament of actual events that have no historical bases or ties. Sounds like something out of the Nicene Creed!

48 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not so sure.

About what?

48 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think what we'll be faced with is that we'll all see breaks in our family lines.  We'll all see the splitting of these lines that really go vertically and horizontally.  I say that because not all will be exalted.  It'll be a sad day for us all, I'm sure. 

Yes, but the wish, the design, the work and the glory and the Lord’s facilitation is for all to be exalted, and all are actual, historic individuals.

[Robert F. Smith]

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think what we'll be faced with is that we'll all see breaks in our family lines.  We'll all see the splitting of these lines that really go vertically and horizontally.  I say that because not all will be exalted.  It'll be a sad day for us all, I'm sure. 

 

How can that be, what with three degrees of glory?  We will all be right where we belong, and there will be no more tears.  in the Telestial Glory, the Holy Spirit will look after us, while in the Terrestrial Glory, Jesus Christ will tend to our needs, and in the Celestial Glory some of us will be ministering angels before the the throne of God the Father.  How could that ever be a disappointment?  Worlds without end, in the presence of the Father.  Those from greater glories can come and visit and renew old acquaintances and memories.  We will all be filled with great joy, and we will all be humbled in the presence of those who are exalted, who will have eternal increase.  I foresee only joy and blessings.  For eternity.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

I was reminded of this thread when I read this comment earlier today on the LDS Newsroom site:

Quote

The statue of Moroni is not a figure of worship, but rather one of respect for his role in the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Moroni was a real person, an ancient prophet in the Book of Mormon who revealed the location of golden plates to the young Joseph Smith in 1823 from which the sacred book of scripture was translated.

 

[Rajah Manchou]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I was reminded of this thread when I read this comment earlier today on the LDS Newsroom site:

The statue of Moroni is not a figure of worship, but rather one of respect for his role in the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Moroni was a real person, an ancient prophet in the Book of Mormon who revealed the location of golden plates to the young Joseph Smith in 1823 from which the sacred book of scripture was translated.

The problem isn't believing whether something is real or not, the problem is declaring what we believe is 100% unmistakably true, before we have any way to possibly know.

• Were they real golden plates, or were they made of tumbaga or some sort of copper-tin mixture? 
• Was it really Moroni, or was it Nephi in some accounts, and a Spanish Conquistador in others?
• And maybe the hill wasn't in New York after all.
• Was the Angel Moroni really a real person? Or was he a glorious angel beyond full description. Or was he that soft-spoken man seen walking down the road with a caged monkey?

Maybe there are metaphorical elements to these seemingly conflicting accounts and we're missing out on them because we insist on only one account being real, while claiming the others are lies and/or rumors. Why force a sharp decision right now? Can't we think it through, or set it aside until more is known?

Edited December 15, 2015 by Rajah Manchou

[stemelbow]

On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2015 at 6:12 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

How can that be, what with three degrees of glory?  We will all be right where we belong, and there will be no more tears.  in the Telestial Glory, the Holy Spirit will look after us, while in the Terrestrial Glory, Jesus Christ will tend to our needs, and in the Celestial Glory some of us will be ministering angels before the the throne of God the Father.  How could that ever be a disappointment?  Worlds without end, in the presence of the Father.  Those from greater glories can come and visit and renew old acquaintances and memories.  We will all be filled with great joy, and we will all be humbled in the presence of those who are exalted, who will have eternal increase.  I foresee only joy and blessings.  For eternity.

I foresee sadness for eternity.  Thus, God weeps for us.  There will always be those who come up short, I guess.  It'll be sad when our family who from our perspectives seem every bit as qualified as the next will be sent to the lesser kingdom.  I will mourn for eternity if Im exalted and many of my loved ones are not.  I dont' know how to take joy while others suffer now, I dont' know how that will change in eternity knowing many will be suffering.  Or at least, as it is now, I can have joy and yet mourn and feel pain for others.  I think that will always be.

Edited December 15, 2015 by stemelbow

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I foresee sadness for eternity.  Thus, God weeps for us.  There will always be those who come up short, I guess.  It'll be sad when our family who from our perspectives seem every bit as qualified as the next will be sent to the lesser kingdom.  I will mourn for eternity if Im exalted and many of my loved ones are not.  I dont' know how to take joy while others suffer now, I dont' know how that will change in eternity knowing many will be suffering.  Or at least, as it is now, I can have joy and yet mourn and feel pain for others.  I think that will always be.

That is like the current notion in our schools that everyone is a winner, as though being an "A" student somehow deprives the others of their propers.  In this world, of course we have these egoistic and hurt responses, but in glory that simply isn't a given.  We will leave behind all our jealousies and spitefulness.  Instead, we will know as we are known, and love and glory will pervade all.

Feeling pain and mourning for the third of the host of heaven who were cast into outer darkness is indeed worthy of tears on the other side.  After all, God himself weeps.  But you seem to be losing perspective on the glorious state to come as though it is a state of eternal sadness and suffering.  That simply doesn't seem the likely state of any of the glories.  Outer darkness, yes, but not the glories.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The problem isn't believing whether something is real or not, the problem is declaring what we believe is 100% unmistakably true, before we have any way to possibly know.

• Were they real golden plates, or were they made of tumbaga or some sort of copper-tin mixture? 
• Was it really Moroni, or was it Nephi in some accounts, and a Spanish Conquistador in others?
• And maybe the hill wasn't in New York after all.
• Was the Angel Moroni really a real person? Or was he a glorious angel beyond full description. Or was he that soft-spoken man seen walking down the road with a caged monkey?

Maybe there are metaphorical elements to these seemingly conflicting accounts and we're missing out on them because we insist on only one account being real, while claiming the others are lies and/or rumors. Why force a sharp decision right now? Can't we think it through, or set it aside until more is known?

There are an infinite number of "maybes" here.  Should that define reality for us?  Infinite uncertainly about everything?  Or are there things that can be determined with some certainty?  What is the basis for your overall epistemology?

[Cold Steel]

Quote

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. 

But why would that be? And at who's instigation did it come forth? Where would one draw the line between fantasy and reality? 

You take a story like Samson. An angel shows up, acting in a peculiar fashion and indicating that the soon-to-be-born strong man is to be a deliverer. He steps into the fire and is gone. The guy's a disaster. Not only does he have a thing for Philistine women, he's betrayed by both of them in his life and never learns. Loses a bet and murders 30 innocent people so he can pay off his debt, attaches flaming torches to some foxes and destroys their crops. Screws up royally, then commits suicide. 

Now I can understand that kind of a story being allegory -- its kind of stupid. But the Book of Mormon is very different. It hangs together very well except for a chapter in Ether, and has all the trimmings of a historical document. You've got very credible witnesses, an angel who also was a major player and delivers some strong evidence in the early part regarding the Arabian trek (which no one in 1830 could have known). You've also have strong scriptural evidences such as the birthright of Joseph, the land of his inheritance and a warning for the gentiles of our day to take a hint from the Nephites of Mormon's day. (And it seems to be happening to us just as it happened to them.) So again, what need is there to take a middle road and reject the story on its face? 

Even the Book of Abraham holds together very well. As Nibley said, if people spent more time studying the work instead of trying to figure out how Joseph arrived at it, we might actually recognize that it's of great worth -- like the pearl of great price. 

AS CV75 said, the angel believed it happened. Why shouldn't we? 

 

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The problem isn't believing whether something is real or not, the problem is declaring what we believe is 100% unmistakably true, before we have any way to possibly know.

• Were they real golden plates, or were they made of tumbaga or some sort of copper-tin mixture? 
• Was it really Moroni, or was it Nephi in some accounts, and a Spanish Conquistador in others?
• And maybe the hill wasn't in New York after all.
• Was the Angel Moroni really a real person? Or was he a glorious angel beyond full description. Or was he that soft-spoken man seen walking down the road with a caged monkey?

Maybe there are metaphorical elements to these seemingly conflicting accounts and we're missing out on them because we insist on only one account being real, while claiming the others are lies and/or rumors. Why force a sharp decision right now? Can't we think it through, or set it aside until more is known?

Is a temple proxy real or not?  What is a real proxy as opposed to an "unreal" proxy?

How about someone who "considers himself" to be Adam?

What if there is nothing more to BE known?

Who were on the banks of the Sussquehanna ?

[Maidservant]

Symbolism is the main delivery of godly knowledge and understanding.  Symbolism leads the student of God through unlimited ascents of information and wisdom, from the foundation of the same device (i.e. story).  The device (hardware) doesn't change, but whenever one returns to the device after integrating the last lesson in their being, then new things are heard/read/learned (software).  Two different people will understand the same device differently depending on where they are at in their progression.  It doesn't mean the device is "true", "untrue", "fact", "fiction", "real", "metaphor".  It means the device is operating as it was meant to.

The fiction/non-fiction category set is, I think, a relatively modern development of our language/conceptualization.

Symbolism is not fiction, and fiction is not symbolism.  There may be something to said in the same vicinity of both, but they do not overlay and correspond conceptually point-to-point.

Neither is symbolism exactly metaphor and vice versa.  Neither is symbolism exactly myth and vice versa.  Metaphor, myth, fiction all may have conceptual points related to symbolism, but again, they do not match point-to-point.

The Book of Mormon IS a work of symbolism.

This is aside from any consideration that it is (in the main) historical (or not, as the case may be).

They are not mutually exclusive. 

I am also brought to mind on the theory of archetype.  While archetypes are symbolic, they play out very much in real time with real people.  Similarly, symbolism cannot be divorced from living our real human lives.  And living our real lives in real time cannot be divorced from symbolism(s), archetypes, patterns.

Among other things, The Book of Mormon is a code book.  It has more than one code in it.

It is a code book for the human heart.

It is a code book for encountering and responding to God.

It is a code book for how to encounter and respond to enemies (and there are quite a few options given).

There are other codes, but that's a start.

My opinion: I find it highly likely that the Book of Mormon was originally written by exactly who it says i.e. Mormon abridging records.  OR at the very least dispensed by God as he deemed.  i.e. if anyone made it up whole cloth, I would lay that at God's feet, not Joseph's. (I am satisfied that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon as it does not match his other writing samples.)

I also find it impossible to conclude (for myself) that the Book of Mormon whether by sections or taken as a whole is anything other than a book of symbolism.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Maidservant

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is like the current notion in our schools that everyone is a winner, as though being an "A" student somehow deprives the others of their propers.  In this world, of course we have these egoistic and hurt responses, but in glory that simply isn't a given.  We will leave behind all our jealousies and spitefulness.  Instead, we will know as we are known, and love and glory will pervade all.

Feeling pain and mourning for the third of the host of heaven who were cast into outer darkness is indeed worthy of tears on the other side.  After all, God himself weeps.  But you seem to be losing perspective on the glorious state to come as though it is a state of eternal sadness and suffering.  That simply doesn't seem the likely state of any of the glories.  Outer darkness, yes, but not the glories.

It sounds like you're putting in a lot of guesswork, as am I.  I have a hard time thinking about eternity and what it'd be like without acknowledging the pain all will have to deal with.  And as you say, and I did, God himself weeps.  We know not the extent of his pain.  But it seems like everything He does is 100%.  We're going to have to get comfortable with the notion that pain and sorrow will be with us for eternity, no matter what degree of glory we end up in. 

 

As I suggested I personally can't imagine being exalted and looking back with any amount of justification when, it appears through our teaching, the vast majority of people will end up in a lesser state for eternity.  It will bring me sadness and pain.  And if my closest loved ones are somehow left out and yet I am graced with exaltation that pain will be that much more.  After all, it's not that any of us earn our eternal blessings.

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, Cold Steel said:

But why would that be? And at who's instigation did it come forth? Where would one draw the line between fantasy and reality?

Certainly people draw lines at different points.  Some learn of the history of the BIble, and conclude its not scripture and not of God.  They drew a line that I crossed long ago and yet still see the Bible as scripture.  I wouldn't doubt at all if many of the stories in the BIble are fantasy, yet they, at least at times, teach us a good lesson.  I can accept that God will work in many ways to teach us, and fantasy, it seems, is hardly a realm He won't tread. 

12 hours ago, Cold Steel said:

You take a story like Samson. An angel shows up, acting in a peculiar fashion and indicating that the soon-to-be-born strong man is to be a deliverer. He steps into the fire and is gone. The guy's a disaster. Not only does he have a thing for Philistine women, he's betrayed by both of them in his life and never learns. Loses a bet and murders 30 innocent people so he can pay off his debt, attaches flaming torches to some foxes and destroys their crops. Screws up royally, then commits suicide. 

Now I can understand that kind of a story being allegory -- its kind of stupid. But the Book of Mormon is very different. It hangs together very well except for a chapter in Ether, and has all the trimmings of a historical document. You've got very credible witnesses, an angel who also was a major player and delivers some strong evidence in the early part regarding the Arabian trek (which no one in 1830 could have known). You've also have strong scriptural evidences such as the birthright of Joseph, the land of his inheritance and a warning for the gentiles of our day to take a hint from the Nephites of Mormon's day. (And it seems to be happening to us just as it happened to them.) So again, what need is there to take a middle road and reject the story on its face? 

I never said anything about rejecting the story on it's face.  My argument is to suggest we should be able to think the story as allegorical in whatever measure we personally feel appropriate and still be considered believers if we so choose.  The link I offered in the OP suggests we simply can't be in that area of middle ground.  My take is one can easily see the whole of the Book as allegory or parts of it and still be a believer.  I see no problem at all with someone saying, "well it appears there is no concrete evidence that Lehi and his family left Jerusalem and began a civilization in the new world.  There's no DNA evidence, there's nothing.  With that, I accept the BoM as scripture, but I see it as a big ol' allegory and I get as much meaning out of it as I did when I viewed it all literally."

Now, you certainly may argue that this person is wrong and there is good evidence supporting the BoM.  But, that's beside the point.  The point is there is room for gray.  There is room to see it differently. 

 

12 hours ago, Cold Steel said:

Even the Book of Abraham holds together very well. As Nibley said, if people spent more time studying the work instead of trying to figure out how Joseph arrived at it, we might actually recognize that it's of great worth -- like the pearl of great price. 

AS CV75 said, the angel believed it happened. Why shouldn't we? 

 

There's plenty of reason and there's plenty of explanation for BoA being scripture and yet not being literal history as well. 

[Rajah Manchou]

Is a temple proxy real or not?
On one level yes, on another no.

How about someone who "considers himself" to be Adam?
Then he/she is Adam, in a way, but not to me.

Who were on the banks of the Sussquehanna?
Probably nobody, but maybe there was a resurrected being there restoring an ancient Priesthood. That makes good sense to me on many levels. But I wasn't there, so who knows,

Edited December 16, 2015 by Rajah Manchou