Grant Hardy's Presentation on The Book of Mormon

[Peppermint Patty]

Professor Peterson posted some interesing information about Grant Hardy's recent FAIR presentation.

From what I can gather, Brother Hardy talked about members not needing to believe in a historical Book of Mormon in order to have saving faith.

Can anyone who was in attendance elaborate further on Brother Hardy's presentation?

This sounds like it was a very interesting presentation. Any idea when the transcript will be available? 

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Peppermint Patty said:

Professor Peterson posted some interesing information about Grant Hardy's recent FAIR presentation.

From what I can gather, Brother Hardy talked about members not needing to believe in a historical Book of Mormon in order to have saving faith.

Can anyone who was in attendance elaborate further on Brother Hardy's presentation?

This sounds like it was a very interesting presentation. Any idea when the transcript will be available? 

where did prof. peterson post this? do tell!

[JAHS]

23 minutes ago, Duncan said:

where did prof. peterson post this? do tell!

Friday morning at FairMormon

[Robert F. Smith]

Grant lined out four apologetic conversations:

1.  the academic, based on naturalistic methodology & standards -- which transcend religious differences and which is outside the "Mormon bubble."

2.  the critics, based on warfare instead of understanding, and often contrary to science, ethics, and history.

3.  faithful members, who may evince partisanship and overclaim, which can create a brittle, fragile faith, based on eisegesis and lawyering.

4. wavering members, who suffer a crisis of expectations, and who need patience & genuine love, rather than slippery responses or propositional truths.

He advised in all instances to be honest, open, and fair, and to always apply the Golden Rule.  He said that apologists need to step up their game.

Grant praised the Maxwell Institute podcast series, with interviews of such luminaries as Pete Enns (#16), Tom Wright (#38), et al.  He said that apologists should be prepared (1 Peter 3:15).  He thinks that we need to recommend the writings of Terryl & Fiona Givens, Patrick Mason, and Richard Bushman, and to apply the historical critical method generally in our scholarship.

His personal belief is that there were ancient Nephites, probably in Mesoamerica, and that the BofM authors were humans with biases and blindspots.  He sees the NT quotes found therein to be God's intertextual effort.  Moreover, he said, God has a plan and he intervenes in history from time to time.  Yet the notion of inspired fiction is also an adequate concept for some.

The Bible he recommends is the Oxford Annotated NRSV, and I agree -- although I would recommend obtaining the edition which includes the Apocrypha.

[Peppermint Patty]

Thanks Robert.

[morgan.deane]

I was there. In the question and answer portion he free styled a bit and rebutted some of the online arguments about his beliefs. Some of the things he said includes his belief that Nephi and Mormon will be there at the resurrection. He also said that if you tell Jesus that the book inspired you, led you to follow and draw close to him for your entire life, Jesus likely wouldn't care that you didn't think it was historical.  I'm sorry I can't get the exact words, but that is pretty close to his meaning.  He had a very good presentation that seemed to tilt needlessly at the nasty FARMS windmill, but overall it was very good.  He talked about 4 different conversations you will have as an apologist: To academics that ask what you believe, critics that ask why you believe, believing members that ask why this is so awesome, and doubting Mormons that ask how can I believe.  He emphasized different strategies and tools for each, but he really liked the golden rule and steering the conversation towards academic standards. They have checks and controls that allow for productive conversations. And he emphasized positive apologetics such as the new Maxwell series on living faith. He suggested some academic introductions to the Bible and the Jewish study guide to the Old Testament that would make you more knowledgeable than a BYU grad and help you better discuss some of the 21st century issues that people have with belief and the Bible. (He was tactful, be he said very plainly that the church just hasn't caught up with the last 200 years of critical Biblical scholarship.) There were some other tidbits that gathered attention such as the idea that sometimes secularism can be helpful because it tends to inspire a curiosity in Mormonism and provide an place for dialogue in academic spaces.  

 

Overall I thought it was very good and productive. He mentioned we should be good stewards of the text and he wanted additional study of the BoM from a variety of angles, and actually make it a bit more complicated and nuanced, and less like a laywerly stacking of comparisons, which I did with my presentation on Gadianton Robbers earlier the previous day. (My paper was so close to the methodology he described I thought he might give me a shout out.)    And his comment on the inspired theory has been incredibly overblown in some circles. He was one speaker at one conference that said something a bit progressive, lets not turn into this epochal event and yet another death knell.   Most of my conversations at the conference were with other academics who specialize in the BoM, both young and old, at a variety of organizations (some of which the critics believe don't really do Ancient BoM studies), who are very interested in a faithful study of the BoM. Personally, I came away with the impression that the study of the BoM is very much alive, but we are also kind, thoughtful, compassionate people, that recognize life is tough and there are a wide variety of people in Mormonism trying to construct a belief system that works for them as best it can.  This includes the inspired fiction theory.  I thought Hardy did a good job of explaining how we can better articulate our beliefs in a variety of situations.  I hope you get a chance to watch or read it soon. I hope this helps until then.  

[Peppermint Patty]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Friday morning at FairMormon

Brother Hardy just clarified his position a few minutes ago on that same thread:

"Just to be clear, I said that I believe that for someone who accepts the Book of Mormon as authoritative scripture and strives to live by its precepts, a faith in the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction can be a "saving faith," that is, faith sufficient to enter into the Celestial Kingdom. I think the idea of a nonhistorical Book of Mormon is incorrect, yet in the end, our relationship to Christ and the Church, and the way that we treat others, will be more determinative of our eternal destiny than our opinions about Book of Mormon geography, historicity, and any number of other controversial issues. And I suggested that everyone will be surprised at the Judgment Day by something or other, including me."

[JAHS]

52 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

I think the idea of a nonhistorical Book of Mormon is incorrect,

There are many in the Community of Christ who have taken this non-historical position, although they do still regard it as scripture.

 

[Peppermint Patty]

27 minutes ago, JAHS said:

There are many in the Community of Christ who have taken this non-historical position, although they do still regard it as scripture.

 

Interesting. I did not know that at all. Is this a recent development?

[JAHS]

12 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

Interesting. I did not know that at all. Is this a recent development?

This attitude has been slowly developing over the decades. Also while the LDS Church sees the Bible and Book of Mormon equal in scriptural importance, the CoC emphasize the Bible as the more authoritative scripture. 

Statement from the CoC:
“While the Church affirms the Book of Mormon as scripture, and makes it available for study and use in various languages, we do not attempt to mandate the degree of belief or use” (Spencer M. Veazey, 2007, dismissing a proposal that the Book of Mormon's divinity should be reaffirmed. Andrew M. Shields, “Official Minutes of Business Session, Wednesday March 28, 2007,” in 2007 World Conference Thursday Bulletin, March 29, 2007. Community of Christ, 2007.).

 

[Robert F. Smith]

Morgan Deane's presentation on August 4, 2016, in Provo, focused on insurgency in the BofM, observing that the BofM has the same flaws as any other legitimate historical source.

Deane pointed out, for example, that Nephite governments were like Greek city-states run by the elites.  When they were weak, that allowed for the rise of so-called "robbers" (Helaman 6 & 11).  Indeed, Deane noted that the victors write the histories which lionize one side and excoriate the other (as pointed out the next day also by Grant Hardy).  Deane cited Edward Luttwak on the consequent praise for the strategy and tactics of the victors as brilliant, even when it wasn't.  So one finds the text declaring the robbers destroyed, even though that was not true -- a recurrent problem whenever local elitists were dissatisfied (and moved by greed for plunder) and were willing to fund social bandits (Robin Hoods) on the margins of society.  Gidianhi, for example, seemed to want only a more egalitarian society with land reform.  Mormon edited everything to fit his spiritual message, thus denying legitimacy to satanic opponents -- who had to be described as lazy & idle, dark & loathesome.  One man's "terrorist" turns out to be another man's "freedom fighter."

[Kevin Christensen]

15 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:

Interesting. I did not know that at all. Is this a recent development?

It took root in the way some RLDS people responded to the publication of No Man Knows My History in 1945, and then how they kept their thoughts when they rose to positions of influence in the 1960s.  There was an RLDS Journal in the 1960s called "Courage" which means, "We publicly face problems without flinching."  Midgley wrote some good social History:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1393&index=10

One influential voice was William D. Russell, a teacher at their Junior College, who published some essays in Sunstone in October 1982.  Apparently, a few years previous he decided to motivate himself to read the Book of Mormon for the first time by offering to teach a class in it  That, and the student papers it generated, provided the foundation of his essay, which also had an in influence on the people who controlled the institutional direction.  I read it very carefully for a 2010 essay in which I demonstrated that Russell's conclusions were premature, that he was fundamentally wrong about everything.  See my "Hindsight on a Book of Mormon Historicity Critque."

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1467&index=7

And for the record, in the Review back in 1995, I raised the issue of different views of historicity in the church, and no one batted an eye or raised a fuss.

Quote

Questions regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon, then, involve the key issue in paradigm debate: that is, whether our community provides better descriptions of the divine nature, better access to the divine, and whether the religious problems that Mormonism solves, or promises to solve eventually,¹⁸⁰ are the most important ones to have solved. The questions raised in New Approaches usually have to do with the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and thereby relate most directly not to issues of faith, but to community. As Hutchinson puts it:

To the degree we disparage the holiness and value of the Book of Mormon, we alienate ourselves from the LDS tradition and define ourselves as outside of that tradition. (p. 4)

I regard investigation of the historicity of the Book of Mormon as essential toward developing contexts that unveil the messages in the text. But notice that Alma, far from offering an “all or nothing” gospel, invites his listeners to begin with “no more than [a] desire to believe,” and to apply that desire to even “a portion of my words” (Alma 32:27). Alma even leaves it to his listeners to decide on that plantable portion for themselves, and of the whole of his words he freely acknowledges, “You cannot know of their surety at first.” The important thing is that they plant something that can grow in their hearts. As long as that portion can take root and grow, we can hope for everything else over time.

I do not mind the diversity of thought in Mormonism. I approve of a distribution of risks. If someone prefers to invest his or her faith in the community, or in some personal experience, or in the strengths of “eternalism,” that is fine with me. Chances are that someone who anchors his or her faith in community, or the philosophical strengths of Mormonism, or New Testament study, or whatever, will develop expertise that I do not have, and will offer gifts to the community that I cannot

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1436&index=8

I said similar things a decade later in Sunstone.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited August 7, 2016 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[Gray]

19 hours ago, JAHS said:

Friday morning at FairMormon

Based on his summary, it seems like a very exciting and level-headed presentation.

[theplains]

22 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:

From what I can gather, Brother Hardy talked about members not needing to believe in a historical Book of Mormon in order to have saving faith.

But if the Book of Mormon does not contain real historical events, then people have been deceived. Especially all those
visitors who come to see the Manti Pageant.

Jim

[Peppermint Patty]

26 minutes ago, theplains said:

But if the Book of Mormon does not contain real historical events, then people have been deceived. Especially all those
visitors who come to see the Manti Pageant.

Jim

Hi Jim, I think what Brother Hardy is saying is that people's opinions about geography and historicity can be distractions and are not necessary for our eternal salvation. Sometimes these opinions can become detrimental to our salvation if we let in the spirit of contention, like we've all seen sometimes with the competing geography theory camps.

In the end, what is going to be determinative of our salvation and what is the real meat of the Gospel is if we loved and obeyed God and helped others with all of our heart, time, talents, minds and soul. 

When we apply the doctrine of the Book of Mormon to our daily lives in furtherance of the above, then it matters not whether one views it as inspired fiction, allegory, parable or non-historical. The real power of the Book comes from its teachings and not its history, or nonhistory.

I think that's what Brother Hardy means. Although I could be wrong

[morgan.deane]

On 8/6/2016 at 3:27 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Morgan Deane's presentation on August 4, 2016, in Provo, focused on insurgency in the BofM, observing that the BofM has the same flaws as any other legitimate historical source.

Deane pointed out, for example, that Nephite governments were like Greek city-states run by the elites.  When they were weak, that allowed for the rise of so-called "robbers" (Helaman 6 & 11).  Indeed, Deane noted that the victors write the histories which lionize one side and excoriate the other (as pointed out the next day also by Grant Hardy).  Deane cited Edward Luttwak on the consequent praise for the strategy and tactics of the victors as brilliant, even when it wasn't.  So one finds the text declaring the robbers destroyed, even though that was not true -- a recurrent problem whenever local elitists were dissatisfied (and moved by greed for plunder) and were willing to fund social bandits (Robin Hoods) on the margins of society.  Gidianhi, for example, seemed to want only a more egalitarian society with land reform.  Mormon edited everything to fit his spiritual message, thus denying legitimacy to satanic opponents -- who had to be described as lazy & idle, dark & loathesome.  One man's "terrorist" turns out to be another man's "freedom fighter."

Thats a pretty good summary! I'll work on having better slides next time.   I also made some edits about heavy metal armor in the BoM. I hope you all get a chance to watch and find value in it when it comes out. 

[hope_for_things]

On 8/6/2016 at 2:42 PM, Peppermint Patty said:

Brother Hardy just clarified his position a few minutes ago on that same thread:

"Just to be clear, I said that I believe that for someone who accepts the Book of Mormon as authoritative scripture and strives to live by its precepts, a faith in the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction can be a "saving faith," that is, faith sufficient to enter into the Celestial Kingdom. I think the idea of a nonhistorical Book of Mormon is incorrect, yet in the end, our relationship to Christ and the Church, and the way that we treat others, will be more determinative of our eternal destiny than our opinions about Book of Mormon geography, historicity, and any number of other controversial issues. And I suggested that everyone will be surprised at the Judgment Day by something or other, including me."

This is excellent.  I feel like I could comfortably attend Sunday school in an environment like this.  I think I could get something out of it and uplift others at the same time.  But when the majority of people in class consider my perspectives as a threat to their faith it makes things very difficult.

 

[hope_for_things]

23 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:

Hi Jim, I think what Brother Hardy is saying is that people's opinions about geography and historicity can be distractions and are not necessary for our eternal salvation. Sometimes these opinions can become detrimental to our salvation if we let in the spirit of contention, like we've all seen sometimes with the competing geography theory camps.

In the end, what is going to be determinative of our salvation and what is the real meat of the Gospel is if we loved and obeyed God and helped others with all of our heart, time, talents, minds and soul. 

When we apply the doctrine of the Book of Mormon to our daily lives in furtherance of the above, then it matters not whether one views it as inspired fiction, allegory, parable or non-historical. The real power of the Book comes from its teachings and not its history, or nonhistory.

I think that's what Brother Hardy means. Although I could be wrong

Do you think this could include discussions about 19th century influences on the BoM, in a Sunday School environment?  I wonder if the paradigm that Brother Hardy explains is something that could realistically work at a Ward and Stake level?  

[consiglieri]

As a Mormon who believes the Book of Mormon is largely inspired fiction, I am heartened to hear Grant allow me a place at the table.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

As a Mormon who believes the Book of Mormon is largely inspired fiction, I am heartened to hear Grant allow me a place at the table.

Now we can all join hands and wipe out Meldrum and his foul ilk.

[Peppermint Patty]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Now we can all join hands and wipe out Meldrum and his foul ilk.

Don't forget about those evil Malay Peninsula folks, too.  And those disreputable Baja Peninsula theory guys should be wiped out also.

[salgare]

On 8/6/2016 at 2:30 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

His personal belief is that there were ancient Nephites, probably in Mesoamerica, and that the BofM authors were humans with biases and blindspots.  He sees the NT quotes found therein to be God's intertextual effort.  Moreover, he said, God has a plan and he intervenes in history from time to time.  Yet the notion of inspired fiction is also an adequate concept for some.

 

I wonder who of the semi-public figures will be the first to come out of the closet?

[Robert F. Smith]

43 minutes ago, salgare said:

I wonder who of the semi-public figures will be the first to come out of the closet?

Which closet?  Your comment is a bit dense, which is not at all unusual for you, salgare.  A little clarity would help.

[salgare]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Which closet?  Your comment is a bit dense, which is not at all unusual for you, salgare.  A little clarity would help.

Who will be the first TBM to come out of the closet and proclaim they do not believe in a historical BoM.  I suspect many are in the closet

Edited August 9, 2016 by salgare

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, salgare said:

Who will be the first TBM to come out of the closet and proclaim they do not believe in a historical BoM.  I suspect many are in the closet

There are always some so-called "true believing Mormons" who eventually apostatize.  That happens, particularly to those who hold rigid and brittle versions of Mormonism.  Inculcating ridiculously infallible, inerrant, and right wing views in some members does them no service and gives them no advantage at all.  Such a pattern of belief will crack and collapse all too quickly, leaving a former member who feels that he was sold a bill of goods.  And he is correct.  Mormon folklore is no substitute for the real thing.  One sees the same pattern among rigid evangelicals.  Such shallow pretend beliefs cannot be sustained over time.

Authentic Mormonism, on the other hand, is dynamic and resilient, able to withstand the buffetings of Satan with fresh equanimity.  The unexamined faith is not worth having, salgare.