Does anybody else consider the Book of Mormon to be fiction?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Sorry to be a little facetious, but on differentiating between real events and fictional ones, I'd guess that God isn't in the habit of revealing history through seer stones in hats. Perhaps, he leaves history to be revealed via more typical means.

And this would include an analysis by you of biblical revelation?  If so, then why do you immediately contradict the Bible here in your statement about what God is in the habit of doing?  Wouldn't it be a good idea to consider the larger context, the way fair-minded professionals do?  Or is false mockery a better approach to reasoned discussion?

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Why would God create fictional stories in fictional books? Maybe he doesn't! My guess is Joseph's culture and imagination took him there, and revelation accompanied his sacred journey, to put it metaphorically.

Well, of course, if you are using the word "revelation" as a metaphor, then I suppose you could apply it just as well to "God," or anything else under discussion.  You don't seem entirely sure that virtually anything could be true or fiction, no matter the label, but you also seem prepared to identify anything as figurative -- if it seems convenient -- which makes any sort of serious discussion impossible.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I would use things like visions and angelic ministrations (ex. Joseph Smith and Mohamed) as starting indicators. Alternatively, I can also imagine a much looser framework that incorporates revelation more broadly into human experience, which would give specific claims to the voice of God less authority but give more meaning to overall human experience.

Many people do take that approach, and I have no problem with that -- as long as you are consistent in not denying science for polemic purposes.

[Benjamin Seeker]

42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And this would include an analysis by you of biblical revelation?  If so, then why do you immediately contradict the Bible here in your statement about what God is in the habit of doing?  Wouldn't it be a good idea to consider the larger context, the way fair-minded professionals do?  Or is false mockery a better approach to reasoned discussion?

Well, of course, if you are using the word "revelation" as a metaphor, then I suppose you could apply it just as well to "God," or anything else under discussion.  You don't seem entirely sure that virtually anything could be true or fiction, no matter the label, but you also seem prepared to identify anything as figurative -- if it seems convenient -- which makes any sort of serious discussion impossible.

On your first paragraph, I'm not sure we're entirely communicating clearly. I'm not entirely following you on biblical revelation. I'll restate my point minus the facetiousness (it was meant light heartedly). I think using modern secular approaches to researching history is a much more reliable way to learn what has happened in the past than revelation is. I believe revelation has significant spiritual value, but judging from conflicting revelation that has occurred across religions, time periods, and even within the church, it seems that it may not be the best vehicle for revealing history.

I didn't mean revelation as metaphorical. I only meant that Joseph Smith's sacred journey was metaphorical. To restate it, because Joseph Smith was concerned with sacred things, had a natural tendency towards revelation, and sought it out, he experienced it in abundance and in meaningful ways, not just for himself but for others as well. However, I am suggesting the possibility that Joseph, instead of being directed by God in most things, was self directed and God accompanied him, which self direction allows space for JS to have  created fictional stories which he sincerely believed to be historical.

Lastly, I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say I'm willing to make anything figurative. Maybe I've been unclear and you've misunderstood. I believe everything we are talking about are real data points that should be considered and addresses, I'm just open to various explanations as I find we have insufficient evidence to nail down one particular explanation (no smoking guns).

Edited November 26, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Just to be ultra-clear, I believe that every time the plates were viewed (except for Josiah Stowell's description of the corner of the plates being a stone of greenish caste), they were seen in vision, so the color and exact nature of the engravings of the physical artifact wouldn't matter in my view.

However, I definitely agree that the pliability/rustling and weight would matter, since they were felt under a handkerchief or cloth covering in ordinary circumstances. That being the case, I might agree with you that tin is unlikely. I would need to learn more about the lack of pliability/rustling factor to have an informed opinion on the matter. Maybe Josiah Stowell's description might point in the right direction.

We'll have to disagree on the nature of the actual events when the plates were viewed. I would give greater credence to the 11 who saw and handled the plates than to Mr Stowell. Do you think tin plate can be engraved with small characters on both sides?

Edited November 26, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Benjamin Seeker]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We'll have to disagree on the nature of the actual events when the plates were viewed. I would give greater credence to the 11 who saw and handled the plates than to Mr Stowell. Do you think tin plate can be engraved with small characters on both sides?

Again, I don't believe the fabricated plates needed engravings. IMHO the plates were always viewed in vision, so they wouldn't need to be golden or have engravings in reality. I'm not aware of any person describing engravings from feeling them under a cloth.

That being said, I'm not wedded to the idea of tin. I don't know hardly anything about metallurgy and I trust your suggestion that tin would make for lousy fabricated plates.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I wonder if Mormon or Moroni have smiled upon Joseph while thinking...we carried these plates and wrote on them for a long time in our journey...and so you use a stone and hat.

If a stone in the hat gives you heartburn, consider this from The Temple Institute in Jerusalem

https://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments-8.htm

Quote

The "Urim V'Tummim"

"And you shall place the Urim V'tummim in the breastplate of judgment, and they shall be over Aaron's heart when he comes before G-d." (ibid. v. 30)

The "Urim V'Tummim" is the Name of G-d

The Urim V'Tummim was the famed, oracle-like aspect of the breastplate by which a Heavenly answer was received for important questions. According to most authoritative opinions, the expression urim v'tummim actually refers not to the breastplate itself, but to the mystical Divine name of G-d which was written on a piece of parchment and inserted into a flap of the garment. The presence of the name facilitated the reception of Divine guidance through the shining of specific letters on the stones.

The Identity of G-d is the Source of Creation

What does this mean? What are the implications of this fact, the knowledge that it is the name of G-d itself which brought about the illumination of the urim v'tummim? This is indeed a lofty concept, but one whose lesson can be readily appreciated, at least on a simple level of understanding.

G-d is the Creator of all existence; His power is unlimited. He has no form whatsoever, neither has He beginning or end... He is the Supreme Being. He is perfect and absolute unity. And He is also totally unknowable.

Yet in numerous passages throughout the Bible, we are commanded to "know" G-d. "In all of your ways, know Him"(Proverbs 3:6); "And I shall betroth you in faith, and you shall know the L-rd" (Hosea 2:22) are but two examples of many such instances.

Truly, how can we come to know G-d, who is omnipotent and infinite? Yet we are commanded - and therefore expected-to do just that. And there is a general rule with regard to the Torah's commandments: the Holy One never makes unfair demands on a person (BT Avodah Zara 3:A).

Knowledge of G-d Through His Names

The sages of Israel teach that one way to know G-d is through awareness of His relationship to the universe which He created. Although it is taught that "no thought can grasp Him at all" (Tikkunei Zohar 17:A), and ultimately G-d's essence is not only unknowable, but unnamable as well-still, G-d's names describe His relationship with creation (Shemot Rabbah 3:6). Through these attributes of Divine interaction, we can at least attempt some glimpse of His greatness, according to our limited intellect. There are a number of names used throughout the Bible; one denotes the attribute of Divine mercy; another the aspect of strict judgment, and so on.

These Divine names of G-d are merely appellations which He has entitled us to use; they are not His true identity, which is beyond the reach of human knowledge. But it was through these names that G-d created heaven and earth, and it is by way of His names that He continues to direct every minute aspect of existence. Thus it is obvious that G-d's names, through which He summoned forth all creation from nothing at all, have great power. This power is the secret behind the prophetic revelation of the urim v'tummim.

From the Time of Moses

The urim v'tummim is unlike any other aspect of the priestly garments, for it was not created by those skilled artisans who fashioned the other items, aided by their understanding and inspiration; and it was not created from the donations or contributions of Israel, as were all the other appointments of the Temple. The entire matter is one of those mysteries which was handed down to Moses at Mount Sinai by G-d Himself, and its secret was transmitted orally down through the generations.

At the time of the original Tabernacle erected in the desert, Moses took the original urim v'tummim, written in sublime holiness, and placed it inside the breastplate of judgment, after Aaron donned the ephod. This is reflected by the verse (Lev. 8:7), "... and he put the ephod upon him, and he fastened him with the belt of the ephod... and he put the breastplate upon him, and into the breastplate he put the urim v'tummim."

Only Questions of Congregational Importance

The process of questioning for Divine aid with the ÔUrim V'Tummim' was done in the following manner: When a question arose whose implications were so consequential that the entire congregation of Israel would be effected-such as, for example, the question of whether or not to go out to war - then, the King of Israel (or the commanding officer of the army) would ask his question before the High Priest. An ordinary person, or someone not representing the entire community would not ask of the urim v'tummim.

The High Priest stands facing the Ark of the Testimony, and the questioner stands behind him, facing the priest's back. The questioner does not speak out loud, neither does he merely think the question in his heart; he poses his query quietly, to himself - like someone who prayers quietly before his Creator. For example, he will ask "Shall I go out to battle, or shall I not go out?"

A Meditative Experience and a Prophetic Revelation

The High Priest is immediately enveloped by the spirit of Divine inspiration. He gazes at the breastplate, and by meditating upon the holy names of G-d, the priest was able to receive the answer through a prophetic vision-the letters on the stones of the breastplate, which would shine forth in his eyes in a special manner, spelling out the answer to the question. The priest then informs the questioner of the answer. 

Flavius Josephus writes (Antiquities 3:8:9) that the stones also shone brilliantly when Israel went forth into battle. This was considered as an auspicious sign for their victory.

Another midrashic passage indicates that when the tribes of Israel found favor in G-d's eyes, each respective stone shone brilliantly. But when particular members of any one tribe were involved in a transgression, that tribe's stone would appear tarnished and dimmed. The High Priest would see this phenomena and understand its cause. He would then cast lots within the rank of this tribe, until the guilty person was revealed and judged (Midrash HaGadol).

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

On your first paragraph, I'm not sure we're entirely communicating clearly. I'm not entirely following you on biblical revelation.

I was calling into question your inconsistency in privileging biblical revelation over D&C revelation (or anything else by Joseph because you are apparently unaware of biblical methods of revelation), even though the circumstances of biblical revelation mirror those claimed by Joseph Smith.  This is a scholarly matter, and has nothing to do with ethereal concepts of inspiration.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I'll restate my point minus the facetiousness (it was meant light heartedly). I think using modern secular approaches to researching history is a much more reliable way to learn what has happened in the past than revelation is. I believe revelation has significant spiritual value, but judging from conflicting revelation that has occurred across religions, time periods, and even within the church, it seems that it may not be the best vehicle for revealing history.

Although you appear not to understand the revelatory consistency which I have been speaking of and see only conflicts, I have no problem with subjecting all such discussion to modern secular science in understanding history.  You seem to be under the false impression that I have been saying something else -- so you may want to go back and review my insistence that you and others hew to the path of standard science and stop your special pleading in order to squirm out of the consequences of telling it like it is.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I didn't mean revelation as metaphorical. I only meant that Joseph Smith's sacred journey was metaphorical. To restate it, because Joseph Smith was concerned with sacred things, had a natural tendency towards revelation, and sought it out, he experienced it in abundance and in meaningful ways, not just for himself but for others as well. However, I am suggesting the possibility that Joseph, instead of being directed by God in most things, was self directed and God accompanied him, which self direction allows space for JS to have  created fictional stories which he sincerely believed to be historical.

You seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth:  You want both a real God and an imaginary, self-directed sacred journey, which somehow work in tandem.  This is secular science?  Sounds incoherent to me.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Lastly, I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say I'm willing to make anything figurative. Maybe I've been unclear and you've misunderstood. I believe everything we are talking about are real data points that should be considered and addresses, I'm just open to various explanations as I find we have insufficient evidence to nail down one particular explanation (no smoking guns).

That's what I mean by you wanting to have it both ways, and to insist on making something figurative whenever convenient.  Again, that is not how scholarship proceeds.  And finally you insist that you are able to state definitively that we don't have adequate evidence by which to evaluate the text of the BofM.  You do that in the absence of any discussion by you of the nuts & bolts -- Smith, Robert F., “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

[Benjamin Seeker]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If a stone in the hat gives you heartburn, consider this from The Temple Institute in Jerusalem

https://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments-8.htm

 

I apologize for the joke and for not explaining myself better. I don't have an issue with a seerstone-in-hat method of revelation. Obviously, it enabled JS. While I believe revelation is an important part of the human relationship with God, I don't think it's a reliable way to discover historical truth, not in the BOM or the Bible.

Edited November 26, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was calling into question your inconsistency in privileging biblical revelation over D&C revelation (or anything else by Joseph because you are apparently unaware of biblical methods of revelation), even though the circumstances of biblical revelation mirror those claimed by Joseph Smith.  This is a scholarly matter, and has nothing to do with ethereal concepts of inspiration.

Before I respond, I want to acknowledge that it can be difficult to communicate through text only. We miss out on many of the human aspects of human delivery, and emoticons only go so far . I want to clarify that I respect your beliefs and logic, and I openly admit the possibility that I'm wrong and you're right!

In response to your first point, l don't privilege biblical revelation. My statement about the bible being more likely to be historical referred to events witnessed by the authors or that occurred within their general time periods, such as the reign of King David or the building of various temples. I'll also clarify that I think huge swaths of the bible are ahistorical (ex. creation accounts in Gen. 1-2:4, Adam and Eve as the sole progenitors of the human race in 4000 B.C. or thereabouts).

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Although you appear not to understand the revelatory consistency which I have been speaking of and see only conflicts, I have no problem with subjecting all such discussion to modern secular science in understanding history.  You seem to be under the false impression that I have been saying something else -- so you may want to go back and review my insistence that you and others hew to the path of standard science and stop your special pleading in order to squirm out of the consequences of telling it like it is.

The conflicts I'm referring to are conflicts of revelatory content. For example, the Koran has multiple verses that clearly group all Christians in a non-saved category. Conflict can also be seen between the various sects of Christianity. My approach to revelation seeks to manage these conflicts without privileging, for example, Christianity over Islam.

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth:  You want both a real God and an imaginary, self-directed sacred journey, which somehow work in tandem.  This is secular science?  Sounds incoherent to me.

I'm not saying that the self directed sacred journey is imaginary. I'm saying that some of what it produces is necessarily the product of human culture, understanding, and even creativity. I invoked the word metaphor in indication that Joseph Smith's journey was a spiritual and intellectual one, not a literal one of primarily traveling from one physical location to another. Again, sorry for the miscommunication.

I also acknowledge that as soon as I admit the possibility of revelation, I have, to some degree, stepped outside of the bounds of secular science. I do privilege secular science in the search for historical knowledge.

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That's what I mean by you wanting to have it both ways, and to insist on making something figurative whenever convenient.  Again, that is not how scholarship proceeds.  And finally you insist that you are able to state definitively that we don't have adequate evidence by which to evaluate the text of the BofM.  

Yes, I do think it's safe to say that we don't have enough evidence to definitively declare the Book of Mormon a translation of an ancient document or a fiction, because there is so much conflicting evidence. So, I remain open to the possibility of something like Blake Ostler suggested, historical core with modern expansion, though I find an inspired fiction model that incorporates actual authentic revelation a more likely scenario.

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You do that in the absence of any discussion by you of the nuts & bolts -- Smith, Robert F., “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

Here are a few examples of the nuts and bolts of conflicting evidence that I think we all have to deal with:

• Joseph's quest for the gold plates appears to evolve out of his treasure seeking. So many elements, including location, guardian spirits, unobtainable treasure, etc. overlap. The Book of Mormon text even reflects a little of this in its inclusion of disappearing buried items.
• One of the major premises of the Book of Mormon, Native Americans as descendants of Israelites, was a common 19th century theme.
• The Book of Mormon also reflects 19th century mound builder myth.
• The Book of Mormon includes huge swaths of texts that were likely not available in 6th century BC, i.e. Deutero-Isaiah.
• It also contains lots of intertextuality with the New Testament, that seems, at best, unlikely, ex. Moroni's interaction with Paul's gifts of the spirits.

I have to run and take my sons to an activity. My point is that these items taken together all point to the likelihood that the Book of Mormon is, at least partially, a product of the 19th century.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

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

In response to your first point, l don't privilege biblical revelation. My statement about the bible being more likely to be historical referred to events witnessed by the authors or that occurred within their general time periods, such as the reign of King David or the building of various temples. I'll also clarify that I think huge swaths of the bible are ahistorical (ex. creation accounts in Gen. 1-2:4, Adam and Eve as the sole progenitors of the human race in 4000 B.C. or thereabouts).

Most scholars do not see the Genesis Creation and Garden accounts as historical, but rather as figurative poetic and literary accounts very much in line with more ancient accounts from other cultures.  The accounts themselves do not parade as historical or science texts, nor do they suggest any sort of recent Creation.  Those are impositions from outside the texts, and have nothing to do with the historical synchronisms from the Classical Israelite period, which I deal with in my “Book of Mormon Event Structure: Ancient Near East,” FARMS Preliminary Report/Study Aid, SMI-84 (Provo: FARMS, 1985/1986); published in JBMS, 5/2 (1996):98-147, online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=5&num=2&id=126 , and https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/JBMRS/article/viewFile/19791/18358 .

10 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

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

I'm not saying that the self directed sacred journey is imaginary. I'm saying that some of what it produces is necessarily the product of human culture, understanding, and even creativity. I invoked the word metaphor in indication that Joseph Smith's journey was a spiritual and intellectual one, not a literal one of primarily traveling from one physical location to another. .........................................

I also acknowledge that as soon as I admit the possibility of revelation, I have, to some degree, stepped outside of the bounds of secular science. I do privilege secular science in the search for historical knowledge.

I see nothing wrong with privileging secular science in the search for historical knowledge.  That is not the same thing as obtaining a testimony via the  Holy Spirit, which is a very different matter.

10 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Yes, I do think it's safe to say that we don't have enough evidence to definitively declare the Book of Mormon a translation of an ancient document or a fiction, because there is so much conflicting evidence. So, I remain open to the possibility of something like Blake Ostler suggested, historical core with modern expansion, though I find an inspired fiction model that incorporates actual authentic revelation a more likely scenario.

Here are a few examples of the nuts and bolts of conflicting evidence that I think we all have to deal with:

• Joseph's quest for the gold plates appears to evolve out of his treasure seeking. So many elements, including location, guardian spirits, unobtainable treasure, etc. overlap. The Book of Mormon text even reflects a little of this in its inclusion of disappearing buried items.
• One of the major premises of the Book of Mormon, Native Americans as descendants of Israelites, was a common 19th century theme.
• The Book of Mormon also reflects 19th century mound builder myth.
• The Book of Mormon includes huge swaths of texts that were likely not available in 6th century BC, i.e. Deutero-Isaiah.
• It also contains lots of intertextuality with the New Testament, that seems, at best, unlikely, ex. Moroni's interaction with Paul's gifts of the spirits.

I have to run and take my sons to an activity. My point is that these items taken together all point to the likelihood that the Book of Mormon is, at least partially, a product of the 19th century.

This is a conversation which must necessarily take place within the confines of secular science, but the "nuts & bolts" I have in mind need to entail something more than by-gosh-and-by-golly correlations or rumors.  Any translation done in any century is going to reflect that era of language and culture.  That is always true, and that is why Skousen and Carmack persuasively argue that the BofM was translated in the 1500s by a person or persons unknown.

[Ouagadougou]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

However, I am suggesting the possibility that Joseph, instead of being directed by God in most things, was self directed and God accompanied him, which self direction allows space for JS to have  created fictional stories which he sincerely believed to be historical.

Interesting point of view.  With this possibility, how would you explain/reconcile Moroni?  

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.27-53?lang=eng#26

Because if there was no Moroni, then there would be no golden plates...and it means Joseph Smith was making it up in his own mind.  

IMO, Jospeh Smith was great at telling stories and had a remarkable memory.  I think he created fictional stories that he probably believed in his own mind; he was a great remixer who mixed Christianity with Masonry, along with the idea that Native Americans are descendants from ancient Israelites.  He wasn't the only person during this time period to claim to have visions/revelations.  

[James Tunney]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I didn't say that God was economical, and it doesn't really matter what some evangelical or Mormon apologist might say.  You entirely missed the point, James:  I was responding to the silly idea that God would deliberately create fictional stories and try to pass them off as real history.  Does that make sense to you?  From your comments I would have said probably not, but (given your reply) maybe I was wrong and you support that sort of nonsense.  Hard to tell what you mean to say here -- especially since you are in effect criticizing the mode of revelation in the Bible as well as the D&C (they are the same).  The bottom line is that all scholars agree that anyone engaging in the transmission (including translation) of ideas on someone else's behalf must always filter it through human interpretation.  There are no verbatim thoughts of God expressed anywhere at any time.  You need to take Mark Bukowski's distinctions to heart, James.

My thought is that it seems equally silly as creating fictional stories and not letting us know that it's fiction as to believe that God would not know how to communicate his words properly so that there wasnt the chance for a mistake. Instead, ad hoc, it's claimed that of course he has to go through a human filter and that's why the supposedly quoted words from God change, or the fundamental concepts of God change, etc.

Couldn't God, in the economy of God, have sent his words to us like we send emails or like I'm sending these words over the internet? Didn't God supposedly write the ten commandments on tablets for Moses? Sure there is always a chance with misinterpretation by those who receive the words, but at least one side, God, would be telling us exactly what he means.

[Benjamin Seeker]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most scholars do not see the Genesis Creation and Garden accounts as historical, but rather as figurative poetic and literary accounts very much in line with more ancient accounts from other cultures.  The accounts themselves do not parade as historical or science texts, nor do they suggest any sort of recent Creation.  Those are impositions from outside the texts, and have nothing to do with the historical synchronisms from the Classical Israelite period, which I deal with in my “Book of Mormon Event Structure: Ancient Near East,” FARMS Preliminary Report/Study Aid, SMI-84 (Provo: FARMS, 1985/1986); published in JBMS, 5/2 (1996):98-147, online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=5&num=2&id=126 , and https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/JBMRS/article/viewFile/19791/18358 .

I see nothing wrong with privileging secular science in the search for historical knowledge.  That is not the same thing as obtaining a testimony via the  Holy Spirit, which is a very different matter.

This is a conversation which must necessarily take place within the confines of secular science, but the "nuts & bolts" I have in mind need to entail something more than by-gosh-and-by-golly correlations or rumors.  Any translation done in any century is going to reflect that era of language and culture.  That is always true, and that is why Skousen and Carmack persuasively argue that the BofM was translated in the 1500s by a person or persons unknown.

On the nature of creation and the Garden account, I was just trying to be clear about my position so that I wasn't misunderstood. I was aware of the suggestion that biblical authors didn't take those accounts as historical, but I was unaware that there was an established academic position supporting that. That's very interesting to know.

Skousen and Carmack's research and argument is interesting, and I look forward to see how other scholars respond to their research as the discussion continues.

Maybe we have come to a good point of ending our debate? We have both clearly stated our positions and addressed areas that we find problematic.

[Benjamin Seeker]

46 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Interesting point of view.  With this possibility, how would you explain/reconcile Moroni?  

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.27-53?lang=eng#26

Because if there was no Moroni, then there would be no golden plates...and it means Joseph Smith was making it up in his own mind.  

IMO, Jospeh Smith was great at telling stories and had a remarkable memory.  I think he created fictional stories that he probably believed in his own mind; he was a great remixer who mixed Christianity with Masonry, along with the idea that Native Americans are descendants from ancient Israelites.  He wasn't the only person during this time period to claim to have visions/revelations.  

My best guess is that Moroni was not a real ancient Native American, and I don't think it's likely that he was an objectively physical angelic being (before anyone gets too offended, those are just guesses!). For me, he is very likely part of a a self directed visionary projection of Joseph's own mind. I also think its possible, even likely judging from the fruits of JS work and the BOM, that his visionary experience incorporated authentic divine components. Obviously, this isn't the only interpretation, but it appears to be a valid possibility to me.

EDIT: I also want to clarify that my belief that there was divine components in JS visions/revelations is not based soley on fruits. It's based on the fact that JS's visions fit the patterns of visionary experience as studied in academia, and that those experience largely effect significant life change for the positive in experiencers and often communicate a number of key core common elements (importance of love, life after death, etc.). My belief is also based on some of the significant data Mormon apologists have pointed to. Finally, it's also based on my own personal experience with revelation, which has led me to the belief in the existence of God, or, at the very least on my most agnostic days, the belief that there something out there or inside of us that humans can easily perceive as a personal God. 

EDIT: We've been discussing the golden plates a bunch up thread, and I think my comments there are also very relevant to our discussion here.

Edited November 26, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

One of the major premises of the Book of Mormon, Native Americans as descendants of Israelites, was a common 19th century theme.

Yet the book is bereft of the common 19th century stereotypical literary treatment of Native American culture. For example, the absence of words such as canoe, wampum, bison, tobacco, drums, corn, medicine, beaver, deer, tomahawk, etc.

Edited November 26, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Benjamin Seeker]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yet the book is bereft of the common 19th century stereotypical literary treatment of Native American culture. For example, the absence of words such as canoe, wampum, bison, tobacco, drums, corn, medicine, beaver, deer, tomahawk, etc.

I agree that typical descriptions of native americans are largely missing. However, common conceptions of their culture and nature are shared by the general descriptions of Lamanites. It could aslo be argued that the BOM uses KJV biblical language to describe them instead.

The BOM does include the "Great Spirit" though, which is a Native American term found in the BOM. According to wikipedia, "The Great Spirit was not always what Native Americans believed in. The Great Spirit is a God-like creature that was adopted by Native American religion in the 18th century."

Edited November 26, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker
To augment content and come off less curtly.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, James Tunney said:

My thought is that it seems equally silly as creating fictional stories and not letting us know that it's fiction as to believe that God would not know how to communicate his words properly so that there wasnt the chance for a mistake. Instead, ad hoc, it's claimed that of course he has to go through a human filter and that's why the supposedly quoted words from God change, or the fundamental concepts of God change, etc.

Couldn't God, in the economy of God, have sent his words to us like we send emails or like I'm sending these words over the internet? Didn't God supposedly write the ten commandments on tablets for Moses? Sure there is always a chance with misinterpretation by those who receive the words, but at least one side, God, would be telling us exactly what he means.

From a previous post...the Temple Institute of Jersalem's description of how the high priest received revelation through the urim v'tummim.......

Quote

The process of questioning for Divine aid with the ÔUrim V'Tummim' was done in the following manner: When a question arose whose implications were so consequential that the entire congregation of Israel would be effected-such as, for example, the question of whether or not to go out to war - then, the King of Israel (or the commanding officer of the army) would ask his question before the High Priest. An ordinary person, or someone not representing the entire community would not ask of the urim v'tummim.

The High Priest stands facing the Ark of the Testimony, and the questioner stands behind him, facing the priest's back. The questioner does not speak out loud, neither does he merely think the question in his heart; he poses his query quietly, to himself - like someone who prayers quietly before his Creator. For example, he will ask "Shall I go out to battle, or shall I not go out?"

A Meditative Experience and a Prophetic Revelation

The High Priest is immediately enveloped by the spirit of Divine inspiration. He gazes at the breastplate, and by meditating upon the holy names of G-d, the priest was able to receive the answer through a prophetic vision-the letters on the stones of the breastplate, which would shine forth in his eyes in a special manner, spelling out the answer to the question. The priest then informs the questioner of the answer.

 

Edited November 26, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Glenn101]

12 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

On your last thought, considering the general rule that no one was allowed to look at the plates, but many people were allowed to handle them, I think it's entirely possible that fabricated plates could have served the purpose of ordinary handling and visionary experience could have been used for seeing them. These ideas are compatible. 

Actually Martin Harris recalls seeing them uncovered on a couple of different occasions prior to his "visionary" experience. But there is enough ambiguity for a person to believe what they wish. As I noted, I am acceding to the preponderance of evidence from the interviews of the witnesses and their own statements. Since they are not here to reaffirm what they reaffirmed, one can imagine up all kinds of scenarios where the witnesses did not see what they saw. But they were there and affirmed what they saw. None of us were there and have only our biases, beliefs, or maybe even spiritual experiences and/or revelations to guide us.

Glenn

[James Tunney]

19 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

From a previous post...the Temple Institute of Jersalem' description of how the high priest received revelation through the urim v'tummim.......

 

That process seems to be overly theatrical .... in order to bolster authority ... like a magician who employs dramatic music and lighting to make the ordinary card tricks seem to be more than they are.

[Ouagadougou]

49 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

My best guess is that Moroni was not a real ancient Native American, and I don't think it's likely that he was an objectively physical angelic being (before anyone gets too offended, those are just guesses!). For me, he is very likely part of a a self directed visionary projection of Joseph's own mind. I also think its possible, even likely judging from the fruits of JS work and the BOM, that his visionary experience incorporated authentic divine components. Obviously, this isn't the only interpretation, but it appears to be a valid possibility to me.

EDIT: I also want to clarify that my belief that there was divine components in JS visions/revelations is not based soley on fruits. It's based on the fact that JS's visions fit the patterns of visionary experience as studied in academia, and that those experience largely effect significant life change for the positive in experiencers and often communicate a number of key core common elements (importance of love, life after death, etc.). My belief is also based on some of the significant data Mormon apologists have pointed to. Finally, it's also based on my own personal experience with revelation, which has led me to the belief in the existence of God, or, at the very least on my most agnostic days, the belief that there something out there or inside of us that humans can easily perceive as a personal God. 

EDIT: We've been discussing the golden plates a bunch up thread, and I think my comments there are also very relevant to our discussion here.

Your interpretation is one that I could probably accept personally, especially since I don't believe that the BoM actually took place or that Moroni existed.  I do believe that there are many inspiring verses within the BoM that contain uplifting, Christ-like teachings.  Similarly, I would argue that there are numerous other fictional books that also promote Christ-like teachings, which could have been inspired by God or one's belief/understanding of God.  

[Benjamin Seeker]

35 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Actually Martin Harris recalls seeing them uncovered on a couple of different occasions prior to his "visionary" experience.

I would really be interested in reading these. 

35 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

But there is enough ambiguity for a person to believe what they wish. As I noted, I am acceding to the preponderance of evidence from the interviews of the witnesses and their own statements. Since they are not here to reaffirm what they reaffirmed, one can imagine up all kinds of scenarios where the witnesses did not see what they saw. But they were there and affirmed what they saw. None of us were there and have only our biases, beliefs, or maybe even spiritual experiences and/or revelations to guide us.

Glenn

Glenn, I agree that there is definitely more evidence in favor of the more straightforward interpretation of the 8 witnesses you adhere to. However, to be fair, I didn't imagine up the scenario I've been putting forward. It was suggested by Burnett's report of Harris' comments. 

I find my position plausible, and I lean towards it because of all of the conflicting evidence about the BOM and what I see as a high likelihood that it is a product of the 19th century. 

 

[Marmonboy]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If a stone in the hat gives you heartburn, consider this from The Temple Institute in Jerusalem

https://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments-8.htm

 

Wait, did this article just refer to the "shining of specific letters upon the stone"?

Isn't this exactly the way the seer stone in the hat was supposed to have worked? Hmmm...

BTW, if I recall the story correctly (and no, I don't have a source, just a fuzzy recollection), JS tried to use the Urim and Thummim found with the plates, but they didn't fit JS's rather large frame very well. He was a pretty big guy, ater all, and maybe that's why he switched to the seer stone.

[Benjamin Seeker]

4 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

Wait, did this article just refer to the "shining of specific letters upon the stone"?

Isn't this exactly the way the seer stone in the hat was supposed to have worked? Hmmm...

BTW, if I recall the story correctly (and no, I don't have a source, just a fuzzy recollection), JS tried to use the Urim and Thummim found with the plates, but they didn't fit JS's rather large frame very well. He was a pretty big guy, ater all, and maybe that's why he switched to the seer stone.

Actually just the opposite, someone reported that the Urim and Thummim stones were inconveniently large and so JS defaulted to the seerstone.

[Marmonboy]

Maybe I misremembered the story then. Either way, the U&T were sized wrong for JS, so he switched. No mystery.

[Calm]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

We'll have to disagree on the nature of the actual events when the plates were viewed. I would give greater credence to the 11 who saw and handled the plates than to Mr Stowell. Do you think tin plate can be engraved with small characters on both sides?

The UandT could be removed from their frames and apparently used in the same way as the seer stones.  They were used for the lost 116 pages, iirc, but then removed by the angel with the plates when the pages were lost.  Can't remember if they were returned to JS's possession or only brought back when shown to the witnesses.

You are right that the spectacle frame didn't fit JS, can't remember if too big or too small.  The breastplate description doesn't look that comfortable or practical either (not quickly removed and hidden like a stone can be popped into a pocket.  Perhaps JS saw the UT as someone else's tools and felt more comfortable using what he saw as his own.  Or perhaps it was a hassle to remove and replace them in the spectacles and he was afraid of bending or breaking them (once my glass lens start popping out, they are never as secure).

Josiah Stowell was a good guy, I would not be surprised at all if a plate had enough corrosion to catch his attention from just a brief view and a corner would be the most likely to get worn or damaged and thus expose the gold/copper alloy underneath the pure gold surface of tumbaga.

Their testimonies are not contradictory, IMO.

Edited November 26, 2016 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I agree that typical descriptions of native americans are largely missing. However, common conceptions of their culture and nature are shared by the general descriptions of Lamanites. It could aslo be argued that the BOM uses KJV biblical language to describe them instead.

The BOM does include the "Great Spirit" though, which is a Native American term found in the BOM. According to wikipedia, "The Great Spirit was not always what Native Americans believed in. The Great Spirit is a God-like creature that was adopted by Native American religion in the 18th century."

I can list 40 or 50 terms commonly associated with Native American culture from books and articles contemporary with the publication of the Book of Mormon including Spaulding and Ethan Smith and others who are the supposed sources from which Joseph cribbed the Book. The Great Spirit was better known as Manito is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon using that word. The absence of these words, IMO, is strong evidence Joseph did not invent the Book of Mormon from his 19th century northeast American experience.