The Grant Hardy Inflection Point for Book of Mormon Historicity

[juliann]

14 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I got a thread ban the last time I replied to one of your posts, juliann.  Hoping it goes better this time...

;0)

But seriously, don't you think Hardy's just being careful?  Who wouldn't in his shoes!  And doesn't this change everything, what cinepro calls "inflection point?"  Take the first question LDS bishop's ask to establish temple worthiness - "do you have a firm testimony of the restored gospel?"  What does that even mean now?  It's wide open.  Even I could have justified a "yes" answer back in the day using Hardy's views.  Relationships have been broken over inability to get a temple recommend for marriage--and yes I know.  (But God is sovereign, I now know that now too.  And He works things for the best.)

Hardy's words are a game-changer, IMO

--Erik 

You should consider yourself lucky. Everyone else who replies to me gets banned from the board. My board angels must be taking too many coffee breaks. Is there anyone else who has replied to me and lived to tell about it?? 

Saying Hardy was just being careful has an uncomfortable undertone that implies he wasn't being honest. When there is zip evidence of that, and given he speaks freely elsewhere, I think that is uncalled for. There has been enough misinterpretation of his words that he wrote a clarification to eradicate speculation he didn't believe the BOM people existed in one of Dan Peterson's blog or FB. Don't have the link, too lazy to look. [I previously attributed that clarification to Mason in another thread.]

What Hardy said has nothing to do with temple interviews. That is a step down a road he didn't take. 

 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

Saying Hardy was just being careful has an uncomfortable undertone that implies he wasn't being honest. When there is zip evidence of that, and given he speaks freely elsewhere, I think that is uncalled for. There has been enough misinterpretation of his words that he wrote a clarification to eradicate speculation he didn't believe the BOM people existed in one of Dan Peterson's blog or FB. 

From here: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/more-effective-apologetics (emphases added):

Quote

Q. What do you think about the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

I believe that Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni were actual, historical people. Partly that’s a matter of faith, but they also sound like distinct voices to me, and perhaps even more importantly, I think they are the wisest, most admirable voices in our religious tradition. (One of the limitations of fiction writing is that it’s hard for authors to create characters who are smarter than themselves, and the Book of Mormon narrators seem much smarter to me than Joseph Smith, especially at age 24.) This doesn’t necessarily mean that the book is accurate as history in every respect; real-live historians have biases and blindspots, and they can make mistakes.

The Book of Mormon is also a translation that is a strange hybrid, even a singularity. (I’m not convinced that it is similar to the JST or the Book of Abraham). It seems to have been revealed in a fairly exact form, perhaps even read off the seer stone. In some ways it’s quite precise—the various parts of the narrative are carefully composed and fit together in complicated ways—while in other ways the translation had to have been rather free, particularly with regard to nineteenth-century concepts and language, including the pervasive phrasing from the King James Bible. When I encounter anachronisms, I don’t automatically think “Joseph must have been a fraud”; instead I ask, “What else could this mean?” Perhaps the God of the Book of Mormon loves intertextuality and wordplay; he certainly wasn’t overly concerned with regular grammar. So I view the Book of Mormon as the words of ancient prophets updated and transformed into something that would make sense to, and inspire, Bible-reading Americans of the nineteenth century. The text was revealed in the form that Jesus wanted, or at least it was sufficient for his purposes.

Q. What about theories of the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction?

A. There are certainly problems with the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but the institutional Church can’t and won’t change. The historical claims of our Mormon scripture are more direct than those made by the Bible, and they are more central to the book’s message—not just with regard to gold plates and angels, but also in the sense of bearing witness that God has a plan for human history, and that he intervenes rather dramatically from time to time (Christ appearing in the ancient Americas is very significant).

When people talk about “inspired fiction,” it’s worth thinking harder about what they might mean. Perhaps that the Book of Mormon is a product of human genius, like other literary or religious works. Or it may be the product of general revelation, in which God or some higher power makes himself known to humans, who then communicate that encounter with the Divine though various scriptures such as Buddhist sutras or the Daodejing or the Bhagavad Gita or the Qur’an. Or there may be special revelation in which God inspired Joseph to create the Book of Mormon in such a way that it exemplifies specific truths of unique importance. In any case, however, we might ask, “Can faith in the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction be a saving faith?” My answer is, “Absolutely!” I believe that if someone, at the judgment bar, were to say to God, “I couldn’t make sense of the Book of Mormon as an ancient American codex, given the available evidence, but I loved that book, I heard your voice in it, and I tried to live by its precepts as best I could,” then God will respond, “Well done, my good and faithful servant.”

For me, I expect to see the resurrected Nephi and Moroni at the judgment bar. It matters to me that they are real individuals. At the same time, I’m not sure that God will ask, “Did you believe the right things about the Trinity, Joseph Smith, the plan of salvation, and the nature of revelation,” let alone my opinions about polygamy, same-sex marriage, blacks and the priesthood, women’s ordination, politics, or Mormon history. Rather, I believe he will say, “Were you my disciple? Did you strive to know me better? Were you constantly trying to refine your ideas and actions in light of your growing understanding? Were you fully engaged in the Church? How did you treat those with different beliefs and values? And by the way, you were wrong on a number of things you felt strongly about.”

I believe that at the judgment day, when Mormons and ex-Mormons, Jews and Christians, Hindus and Buddhists, Muslims and Sikhs, agnostics and atheists are gathered together, we’re all going to be surprised in one way or another. In fact, I’m sure of it. If I’m not surprised, that would be a huge surprise.

I concur with pretty much everything he says here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 25, 2016 by smac97

[juliann]

On 8/24/2016 at 11:13 AM, cinepro said:

 

Was it only courtesy that kept the crowd from booing Hardy off the stage?  Where are the rebuttals and denunciations?  When did harboring such possibilities become acceptable (and don't get me wrong, I think it is a monumentally good thing for such ideas to become acceptable among LDS)?

 

I want to come back to this. (I am sure there are polemicists who would boo him off the stage).  Defenders and critics have developed simplistic narratives that should be much more nuanced. The disconnect may be that the defenders are beginning to incorporate nuances, and many critics still want to define apologetics as polemics, creating a sort of side bar conversation that fewer can relate to. It probably has a lot to do with where we hang out, this board has a lot of polemicists and it promotes the idea that is what both sides do. Or there are a few (and very few) high profile apologists and critics who strike out at their opposition and they become the face of their ideology while everyone else is ignored. 

In the meantime, from my view of things, there has been a slow but steady learning curve. We were new at it in the 90s. The topics were different. The critics were different. (And I disagree with Hardy about anti-Mormons. Not that the term is pragmatic, but I do wonder how much exposure someone has had if they don't think there are anti-Mormons when there are paid professional picketers, and hatemongers that could outdo the Westboro Church.)  

The most useful thing about FM's emphasis on an academic approach is that there are standards for evidence and research that we must measure ourselves against. If critics can't accept that it is an ethical standard for us, they should be able to accept that plain old pride guides us. Nobody likes to be touting an indefensible position. And there is no shortage of people willing to point out the flaws. That is why we went to Wiki, it can be instantly updated and errors fixed.I imprinted on message boards because it was my first exposure (along with chat rooms) to the Internet. But where most probably consider them a lower life form because of the polemics, I still see them as the best training ground ever created. Put out a position and within minutes you will see every hole in it. 

So, a lot has changed. A lot needs to change. And I still wonder when we will hear the same appeal for respectful communication coming from our critics with the same resounding applause apologists gave it.

 

[provoman]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From here: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/more-effective-apologetics (emphases added):

I concur with pretty much everything he says here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, can you help understand your position? I read your first comment in the "inspired fiction" thread with the poll, if I understood your post correctly you do not support the "inspired fiction" concept. If you offered a clarification in that thread, I have not read the whole thread. Will you help me to understand your position on inspired fiction and your concurrence in this thread?  

[provoman]

 

Elder Oaks - The Historicity of the Book of Mormon

"There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors’ declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship."

[UtahTexan]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Just to be clear, are you referring to this Elder Holland, or a different one...?

great talk.....

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, provoman said:

Smac, can you help understand your position? I read your first comment in the "inspired fiction" thread with the poll, if I understood your post correctly you do not support the "inspired fiction" concept. If you offered a clarification in that thread, I have not read the whole thread. Will you help me to understand your position on inspired fiction and your concurrence in this thread?  

I have not changed my position on the "Inspire Fiction" theory.  I reject it.  I find it deeply problematic (see here).

Do you have a specific question?  I'm not sure what you are looking for.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

To be fair, here is another quote from Hardy's talk that should probably be posted along with the comment under discussion:

Quote

 

There are certainly problems with the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but the institutional Church can’t and won’t change. The historical claims of our Mormon scripture are more direct than those made by the Bible, and they are more central to the book’s message—not just with regard to gold plates and angels, but also in the sense of bearing witness that God has a plan for human history, and that he intervenes rather dramatically from time to time (Christ appearing in the ancient Americas is very significant).

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/more-effective-apologetics

So does that leave apologists in the middle, trying to convince disbelievers of the historicity of the Book of Mormon that there is a place for them in the pews, all the while "the institutional Church can't and won't change"?  

Edited August 25, 2016 by cinepro
This new board software is garbage.

[provoman]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have not changed my position on the "Inspire Fiction" theory.  I reject it.  I find it deeply problematic (see here).

Do you have a specific question?  I'm not sure what you are looking for.

Thanks,

-Smac

In the other thread, your point 2 "Inspired Fiction" = "Rejection of The Book of Mormon as Scripture and Joseph Smith as a Prophet" leads into the next point "Rejection of BOM as Scripture = Rejection of Christ".  You also later clarified that you were specifically addressing the issue within the LDS paradigm. Presumably, Hardy was also addressing the question within the LDS paradigm. I acknowledge that you did not post that your agreed with "everything" Hardy stated, but "pretty much everything". With that the question is

• Within the LDS paradigm, do agree that “faith in the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction be a *saving faith?”

 

 

*"Saving faith" I am unfamiliar with that this phrase means. I am familiar with saved v salvation/exaltation. Saved, from an LDS perspective, is Christ's triumph over physical death, thus all who attained a physical body will be resurrected. Salvation/Exaltation, as I understand it from a LDS perspective, is eternal life in Celestial glory.  It would seem Hardy would need to clarify what he meant about "saving faith".

 

 

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, provoman said:

In the other thread, your point 2 "Inspired Fiction" = "Rejection of The Book of Mormon as Scripture and Joseph Smith as a Prophet" leads into the next point "Rejection of BOM as Scripture = Rejection of Christ".  You also later clarified that you were specifically addressing the issue within the LDS paradigm. Presumably, Hardy was also addressing the question within the LDS paradigm. I acknowledge that you did not post that your agreed with "everything" Hardy stated, but "pretty much everything". With that the question is

• Within the LDS paradigm, do agree that “faith in the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction be a *saving faith?”

*"Saving faith" I am unfamiliar with that this phrase means. I am familiar with saved v salvation/exaltation. Saved, from an LDS perspective, is Christ's triumph over physical death, thus all who attained a physical body will be resurrected. Salvation/Exaltation, as I understand it from a LDS perspective, is eternal life in Celestial glory.  It would seem Hardy would need to clarify what he meant about "saving faith".

Okay, I think I see your point.  I have clarified my position here:

Quote

On 8/24/2016 at 2:55 PM, churchistrue said:

I would love for it to have more meaning.  But I think Grant Hardy's statement and the subsequent approval or absence of critique by other well known apologists could be pretty innocuous.  None of them are endorsing inspired fiction model.  A misunderstanding or even lack of belief certain historical or doctrinal points wouldn't be grounds for disqualification of temple recommend (which I guess we could equate to Dr. Hardy's "saving faith"), as long as belief in the core principles and obedience was there.  

I agree with your general sentiment.  But for me, I would have a hard time reconciling A) a rejection of the Church's teachings on the origins of The Book of Mormon (that it is a translation of an ancient record of some of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas) in favor of the "Inspired Fiction / Pious Fraud" theories, and B) affirmatively answering in a TR interview that I have "a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days."  In my view, these theories require the rejection of way too much of what we understand to be the Restored Gospel.

I would also have a difficult time reconciling acceptance of the "Inspired Fiction / Pious Fraud" theories with the TR question about whether I "support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  I don't see how the "Inspired Fiction / Pious Fraud" theories could be characterized as anything but "teachings ... {which} are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

But again, that's just for me. 

And here:

Quote

23 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Yeah, we've been through this before, and I disagree.  I don't believe the BOM is historical and have absolutely no issues with those questions from the TR interview.

I acknowledge that, which is why I took pains to clarify that I limit my position on this issue to myself.

I would much rather have you in the Church and rejecting the historicity of The Book of Mormon than out of the Church.  I would also extend to you every measure of friendship and fellowship

And here:

Quote

Elder Oaks aptly described it {the "Inspired Fiction" theory} as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship." This is why I find advocacy of this approach problematic. Such advocates are steering others up a spiritual blind alley; a path, I think, which sooner or later will culminate in a crisis of faith and/or a rejection of The Book of Mormon. After all, one who rejects its historicity has already rejected a substantive, even vital, part of the book. Rejecting the rest of it would seem to be just a matter of time.  I think an affirmative denial of the book's historicity will, sooner or later, become fatal to a testimony of the book. Ambivalence about historicity is perhaps possible, but affirmative denial is, I think, not compatible with an enduring and efficacious testimony of The Book of Mormon.

If others can reconcile the "Inspired Fiction" theory with continued faith in Christ, acceptance (of some form) of The Book of Mormon, and continued activity and service in the Church, then I am glad to hear that.  Despite the apparent eventual risks of this theory (see last quote above), I would rather have people in the Church and rejecting the historicity of The Book of Mormon than out of the Church.  I would also extend to them every measure of friendship and fellowship.  Should such persons fall within my stewardship, I would probably confer with them regarding the "Inspired Fiction" approach.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 25, 2016 by smac97

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

Just to be clear, are you referring to this Elder Holland, or a different one...?

I guess you missed these quotes from Spencer McDonald's post on this page:

Quote

“I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”

— Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:340

 

Quote

“In this Church there is an enormous amount of room—and scriptural commandment—for studying and learning, for comparing and considering, for discussion and awaiting further revelation. We all learn ‘line upon line, precept upon precept,’ with the goal being authentic religious faith informing genuine Christlike living. In this there is no place for coercion or manipulation, no place for intimidation or hypocrisy.”

– Jeffrey R. Holland, “A Prayer for the Children,” Ensign, May 2003

 

Quote

“I think you’d be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to [the origins of the Book of Mormon], who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we’re not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. … We would say: 'This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I’m going forward. If I can help you work toward that I’d be glad to, but I don’t love you less; I don’t distance you more; I don’t say you’re unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can’t make that step or move to the beat of that drum.' … We really don’t want to sound smug. We don’t want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.”   Elder Holland, http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

[Calm]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

Saying Hardy was just being careful has an uncomfortable undertone that implies he wasn't being honest. When there is zip evidence of that, and given he speaks freely elsewhere, I think that is uncalled for.

It is not as if he couldn't have just said "not interested".  It is not as if talking at FM is the in thing to do in the Church and people are fighting tooth and claw to get a slot.

[provoman]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay, I think I see your point.  I have clarified my position here:

And here:

And here:

If others can reconcile the "Inspired Fiction" theory with continued faith in Christ, acceptance (of some form) of The Book of Mormon, and continued activity and service in the Church, then I am glad to hear that.  Despite the apparent eventual risks of this theory (see last quote above), I would rather have people in the Church and rejecting the historicity of The Book of Mormon than out of the Church.  I would also extend to them every measure of friendship and fellowship.  Should such persons fall within my stewardship, I would probably confer with them regarding the "Inspired Fiction" approach.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I agree that there is "risk" in keeping with an "inspired fiction/pious fraud" approach. I think it somewhat irresponsible for Hardy to have made the statement. First he used terminology - "saving faith" that has no real meaning to an LDS audience. Second as you have put and supported by statement of Elder Oaks, there are other issues that arise under "inspired fiction/pious fraud".  

With that, I also agree that those who ascribe to inspired fiction/pious fraud, should be "extend[ed] to them every measure of friendship and fellowship" - provided they are not harming others with their beliefs.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, provoman said:

I agree that there is "risk" in keeping with an "inspired fiction/pious fraud" approach. I think it somewhat irresponsible for Hardy to have made the statement. First he used terminology - "saving faith" that has no real meaning to an LDS audience. Second as you have put and supported by statement of Elder Oaks, there are other issues that arise under "inspired fiction/pious fraud".  

With that, I also agree that those who ascribe to inspired fiction/pious fraud, should be "extend[ed] to them every measure of friendship and fellowship" - provided they are not harming others with their beliefs.

I think Bro. Hardy's statements are well-intentioned.  I think he is aware of the risks associated with the "inspired fiction/pious fraud" concepts.  I have some first-hand experience with having acquaintances who, having lost belief in The Book of Mormon, have taken an "all or nothing" approach and tossed out faith in the Restored Gospel in its entirety, including Jesus Christ.  And there there are likely some people who have rejected the Church's teachings, and have instead adopted the "inspired fiction/pious fraud" theories, and now seek to persuade other members of the Church to follow their lead.  This is, I think, why Elder Oaks made such a pointed observation on this issue ("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.").  I also think this is why Grant Hardy made his comment above ("The historical claims of our Mormon scripture are more direct than those made by the Bible, and they are more central to the book’s message—not just with regard to gold plates and angels, but also in the sense of bearing witness that God has a plan for human history, and that he intervenes rather dramatically from time to time.").

In my view, I can accept various theories about the Flood and still retain faith in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ as housed in the LDS Church, because I don't think accepting any particular interpretation of the Flood (that it was global, limited, metaphorical, etc.) and rejecting the others would affect that faith.  I can also accommodate differing perspectives on the Priesthood Ban and still retain my faith.  And differing perspectives on women holding the Priesthood.  And on the location in the Americas where The Book of Mormon events took place.  And so on.

I think our grasp of these teachings and concepts, the measure of light and knowledge we have received, is . . . limited, such that there is room for principled and reasoned disagreement.

In contrast, the Church's teachings about Jesus Christ being the Son of God and our Savior are, as Amasa Lyman found out, not as open to points of view that substantially diverge from the Church's teachings.

In my view, the historicity of The Book of Mormon is very much tied up with its truth claims, such that to reject the former is to reject the latter (sooner or later).  But there apparently are members of the Church who disagree with me on that point.  While I do not understand this position, I think we need to allow space in the Church for those who have it to remain, and to make such people feel loved and welcomed and valued.

I think we may run into problems if and when a person with this viewpoint seeks to persuade others in the Church to reject the teachings of the Church, and to instead adopt the "Inspired Fiction" and/or "Pious Fraud" theories.  That may be one of the bigger challenges in retaining these folks in the Church.  Nevertheless, I hope we can work things out on a case-by-case basis.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 26, 2016 by smac97

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, provoman said:

 

I agree that there is "risk" in keeping with an "inspired fiction/pious fraud" approach. I think it somewhat irresponsible for Hardy to have made the statement. First he used terminology - "saving faith" that has no real meaning to an LDS audience. Second as you have put and supported by statement of Elder Oaks, there are other issues that arise under "inspired fiction/pious fraud".  

With that, I also agree that those who ascribe to inspired fiction/pious fraud, should be "extend[ed] to them every measure of friendship and fellowship" - provided they are not harming others with their beliefs.

Why wouldn't "saving faith" have anything to do with an LDS audience?  Just curious.  Afterall, it is ultimately what all of them are trying hard to do nowadays.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, provoman said:

I agree that there is "risk" in keeping with an "inspired fiction/pious fraud" approach. I think it somewhat irresponsible for Hardy to have made the statement. First he used terminology - "saving faith" that has no real meaning to an LDS audience.

"Saving faith" is, I think, a meaningful term amongst the Latter-day Saints.  This phrase has been used several times in LDS manuals and in General Conference talks.

Quote

Second as you have put and supported by statement of Elder Oaks, there are other issues that arise under "inspired fiction/pious fraud".  

I agree.  But I don't think Bro. Hardy is focusing so much on the flaws in these theories, and rather is speaking of loving and accepting and welcoming members of the Church who accept these theories.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess you missed these quotes from Spencer McDonald's post on this page:

“In this Church there is an enormous amount of room—and scriptural commandment—for studying and learning, for comparing and considering, for discussion and awaiting further revelation. We all learn ‘line upon line, precept upon precept,’ with the goal being authentic religious faith informing genuine Christlike living. In this there is no place for coercion or manipulation, no place for intimidation or hypocrisy.”

– Jeffrey R. Holland, “A Prayer for the Children,” Ensign, May 2003

 

The 2003 quote from Elder Holland isn't very specific, and we would need to ask, in the context of this thread, whether or not he meant to extend is magnanimity to those who don't believe in the historicity of The Book of Mormon. 

Based on his comments in 2009, I suspect he didn't, but if you disagree, that's your prerogative. 

[Five Solas]

On 8/25/2016 at 1:00 PM, juliann said:

...

Saying Hardy was just being careful has an uncomfortable undertone that implies he wasn't being honest. When there is zip evidence of that, and given he speaks freely elsewhere, I think that is uncalled for. There has been enough misinterpretation of his words that he wrote a clarification to eradicate speculation he didn't believe the BOM people existed in one of Dan Peterson's blog or FB. Don't have the link, too lazy to look. [I previously attributed that clarification to Mason in another thread.]

What Hardy said has nothing to do with temple interviews. That is a step down a road he didn't take.

It's worth taking a moment to clarify I wasn't implying dishonesty when I wrote "careful."  Anyone hoping to accomplish change from within an organization (any organization) needs to be careful with their words lest they appear disloyal (and thereby undermine their purpose). 

Hopefully I stated the obvious for most readers, but just in case...

;0)

Regarding temple worthiness interviews--yes, he didn't go there (and no, I didn't say he did).  But don't you think there's an implication here?  "Do you have a firm testimony of the restored gospel?"  Does it count as "worthy" if an interviewee replies he/she firmly believes the Book of Mormon is "inspired fiction" (assuming he/she answers all other questions correctly)?

What do you think, juliann?

--Erik