What happened to the David O. McKay and BOM historicity thread?

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I 100% agree with Tom that what question we ask determine what we think.

That said, I remain a bit skeptical here simply because it seems hard to believe McKay hadn't considered these issues given the turmoil over historicity in the 30's in the CES. That's not to say McKay might not have been persuaded by McMurrin, O. C. Tanner or someone else during that period as someone else suggested. Just that I'm not sure the "ask the right questions" makes sense contextually given the debates that were raging at the time.

Or ... maybe nobody asked DOM the right questions in the right way WRT BOM historicity.

[Robert F. Smith]

The internet Wayback Machine hasn't archived the deleted thread, but I archived some of the more important posts, and I can make them available to anyone who PMs me.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Or ... maybe nobody asked DOM the right questions in the right way WRT BOM historicity.

I suspect that's it as I alluded to in the now lost thread. I don't doubt Nibley's beliefs. What's unclear is the question he was asking McKay that led him to those conclusions. So Tom's point could be well applied to Hugh Nibley. Further without paying attention to that original context, the meaning of McKay's statements could easily shift over the ensuing years. That's one big reason why distant broad interpretations are problematic as evidence.

[mfbukowski]

nevermind.  it was a stupid post

Edited August 8, 2017 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Tom N said:

Yesterday I found out about this thread. I am the Tom Nibley of whom so much has been written in this tempestuous teapot. I told a story from my life to illustrate a point, but I didn't speak clearly enough and the shock value of the story overrode the message.

The story: Dad spoke with David O. McKay about writing a book that would show that the BOM was historically accurate as to it's time and setting in the ancient middle east and can therefore be considered a truly historical record, to which Pres. McKay (although this probably took place before he was president of the church, he would have been president of the twelve) replied, "But Joseph Smith wrote the BOM".

The message: If you don't ask the right questions you don't get the right answers, no matter who you are or what your position and/or calling. And if you don't ask any questions at all you're stuck with whatever someone happened to tell you whether they know what they're talking about or not. 

Some in this forum have expressed shock that McKay 'questioned the BOM'. But what I was trying to say was that he apparently didn't question a version of the source of the BOM that was popular (exactly how popular and among whom I can't really say) at the time. That version stated that the BOM was inspired fiction, something like Uncle Tom's Cabin, Ben Hur, Dear and Glorious Physician, The Chronicles of Narnia, etcetera, telling stories that were made up, but bore testimony of  the teachings of Jesus and could strengthen testimonies without having to be considered accurate history. To realize how wildly foreign and exotic the settings of both the Bible and the BOM are one only has to look at the many paintings over the centuries that portray Christ, the prophets and apostles in medieval dress appropriate to the time and place of the artist, but nothing like what was actually worn by the ancients (which we all know from Junior Sunday School presentations to have been bathrobes with dish towels on the heads, and don't tell me that that isn't true, because I saw it in church!). Art work depicting BOM themes are often based on Aztec or Inca artifacts that may or may not have any relation to the BOM. They are, along with written works like Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites, Orson Scott Card's Homecoming series, and etcetera, inspired fiction.

In my opinion what happened was that McKay was presented for the first time with a question that he had never considered before. I deeply believe that He had a profound testimony of the message of the BOM, that Jesus is the Christ and that God will keep covenant with Israel. But he hadn't really thought deeply about how the BOM came into being. Remember that from the beginning of the restoration the message that excited people was that the church of the New Testament had been restored. And so it was to the Bible one must look for evidence of what the church was all about. In the Journal of Discourses speakers will refer to "The scriptures and the Book of Mormon" thereby putting them in different classifications. With the BOM in second place. Joseph Smith said, "I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of anything that is not contained in he Bible. If I do, I think there are so many overwise men here, that they would cry 'treason' and put me to death. So I will go to the old Bible and turn commentator today." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, loc. 4892, kindle edition.) He told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, but he seldom quote from it. So the focus of study in the church was at the time of the referenced story, and had been for decades, the Bible.

Now, probably for the first time (my opinion, no one need take it as fact) Bro. McKay was confronted with the possibility that there might be solid historical and geographical evidence that the BOM came from where it claimed to have come from. And when he examined that evidence, undoubtedly with both study and prayer, he accepted that evidence with enough conviction that he commissioned An Approach to the Book of Mormon to be the Melchizedek Priesthood manual for 1957.

So the lesson is: Ask the right questions and look at all the evidence you can before you make up your mind. But then, there will always be more evidence than you can obtain, and more will come forth. So we would be wise to heed Joseph's admonition, "Had I inspiration, revelation and lungs to communicate what my soul has contemplated in times past, there is not a soul in this congregation but would go to there homes and shut their mouths in everlasting silence on religion till they had learned something". (Teachings, loc 4491)

That is a fine interpretation, but I think McKay's response means simply that Joseph Smith produced [translated the engravings on the gold plates as his personal accounts attest] and published the book in 1830 and so it could not have possibly been published as an abridgement of ancient records in antiquity.

[Calm]

From 1925, a stated belief in the experience of the Three Witnesses and their testimony from a friend who is doing all the work, I just asked.  The bolding of the testimony about the Nephites and Lamanites is mine, the rest my friend's:

"David O. McKay,

THE MODERN TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH SMITH

Conference Report, October 1925, p.110

Let me call your attention to another witness nearer to us than the ancient apostles--the testimony of Joseph Smith the prophet. This comes closer to us. These other men are a long way from us in measurement of time. Joseph Smith testified that the risen Lord appeared to him, that he was introduced to the boy prophet by the Lord himself, the Father, who said, "This is my beloved Son; hear him." If that testimony stood alone it would be, as Christ said his testimony would be, of no avail when he spoke of himself. If Jesus were the only witness it would not be of force, but he had also God's testimony and the Scriptures. And so, Joseph Smith has other witnesses whose integrity cannot be questioned. Of Joseph's wonderful testimony I have not time to speak, I am merely suggesting a line of thought that young men may follow and come nearer to Christ if they will be conscientious and true, and not "play pranks with their souls," but be honest as Joseph Smith was honest, and as these other men were honest to death in their testimonies.

THREE WITNESSES CORROBORATE THE VISION OF JOSEPH

Three witnesses corroborated Joseph Smith's wonderful vision, and in that testimony which they give they bear record of another truth, the immortality of man. For if Jesus Christ lived after death, and the angel Moroni came as these three Witnesses declared, then you and I shall live after death! Man is immortal. Oh, what a wonderful revelation, what it means to men who now but perfunctorily and in a conventional manner accept the gospel of Christ! These three men testified:

"Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for His voice hath declared it unto us." "Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris."

I will not take time to read all.

One of the most pleasant features of an interesting and profitable visit that I recently made with President B. H. Roberts through the Eastern States mission, was our coming in contact with scenes in early Church history. When we were at Palmyra I read in one of the local papers a testimony, or memorandum, given by a man who knew these three witnesses personally. He has never joined the Church, but in that local paper I read this testimony of the integrity of one of these witnesses:

John H. Gilbert, on September 8, 1892, the man who set the type of the Book of Mormon, says this of Martin Harris:

"Martin Harris was a good farmer owning a farm of about one hundred and fifty acres about a mile north of Palmyra village, and had money at interest. Martin, as everybody called him, was considered by his neighbors a very honest man."

Martin, the honest man, says to the world, "God's voice declared to us that the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated are true; an angel of God came down and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the records." "A very honest man," bears the witness, why should we doubt it?"

Edited August 8, 2017 by Calm

[stemelbow]

22 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I 100% agree with Tom that what question we ask determine what we think.

That said, I remain a bit skeptical here simply because it seems hard to believe McKay hadn't considered these issues given the turmoil over historicity in the 30's in the CES. That's not to say McKay might not have been persuaded by McMurrin, O. C. Tanner or someone else during that period as someone else suggested. Just that I'm not sure the "ask the right questions" makes sense contextually given the debates that were raging at the time.

I do appreciate that Tom came and clarified for us, helping us understand the situation better.  But what I highlighted above from Clark, was my initial reaction too.  It feels a little bit of a stretch to take McKay's one  six word line to say much more than it said, without much more in the context of what was said. 

I guess it could be that from the turmoil in the 30's McKay walked away being pretty skeptical at the whole idea of addressing the question at all.  But I don't think he didn't think the Book represented story's from real people in ancient times.  I think he did. 

[longview]

On 8/8/2017 at 5:42 AM, Tom N said:

In my opinion what happened was that McKay was presented for the first time with a question that he had never considered before. I deeply believe that He had a profound testimony of the message of the BOM, that Jesus is the Christ and that God will keep covenant with Israel. But he hadn't really thought deeply about how the BOM came into being.

You seem to think Pres. McKay was such a shallow person that he would not have understood the words of General Mormon who made an abridgment of Nephite records.  In many places throughout the BoM, Mormon pauses to add his comments that are very helpful to the reader.  He drew from the Small Plates (sacred histories including ministries and teachings of Nephite prophets) and the Large Plates (account of the reign of kings, and the wars and contentions).  He even commented on (and within) the record of Ether (Jaredite history).  All unflinching testimonies of the actual history of what transpired in the Americas.

McKay without a doubt was a well seasoned leader, thinker, teacher, administrator in many capacities throughout his life.  Your allegation is very lacking in context.  I do not trust your "interpretation."

On 8/8/2017 at 5:42 AM, Tom N said:

In the Journal of Discourses speakers will refer to "The scriptures and the Book of Mormon" thereby putting them in different classifications. With the BOM in second place. Joseph Smith said, "I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of anything that is not contained in he Bible. If I do, I think there are so many overwise men here, that they would cry 'treason' and put me to death. So I will go to the old Bible and turn commentator today."

Sounds very disjointed.  I don't think you understand what you're saying.  The BoM is the "Keystone of our Religion."  It is the world's greatest commentator on the Bible (both OT and NT).  Joseph Smith was NOT confined to the Bible.  He even made "Inspired Revisions" to correct the Bible.  He brought forth other major scriptures including the D&C which unambiguously sustains the BoM:

D&C 3:19 And for this very purpose are these plates preserved, which contain these records—that the promises of the Lord might be fulfilled, which he made to his people;  20 And that the Lamanites might come to the knowledge of their fathers, and that they might know the promises of the Lord, and that they may believe the gospel and rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ, and be glorified through faith in his name, and that through their repentance they might be saved. Amen.

D&C 20:8 And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon; 9 Which contains a record of a fallen people, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also;

 

[DonBradley]

I am sad that I missed this conversation!

What was the other evidence presented that President McKay saw the Book of Mormon as a 19th century text?

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, DonBradley said:

I am sad that I missed this conversation!

What was the other evidence presented that President McKay saw the Book of Mormon as a 19th century text?

There are multiple people who heard the story from Nibley, including Greg Prince and Boyd Petersen, but there is nothing else beyond the Nibley/Mckay interaction at this point. Greg Prince told me that there was nothing in any of the Mckay diaries or papers that even hints at it.

[Stargazer]

On 8/9/2017 at 3:10 PM, longview said:

You seem to think Pres. McKay was such a shallow person that he would not have understood the words of General Mormon who made an abridgment of Nephite records.  In many places throughout the BoM, Mormon pauses to add his comments that are very helpful to the reader.  He drew from the Small Plates (sacred histories including ministries and teachings of Nephite prophets) and the Large Plates (account of the reign of kings, and the wars and contentions).  He even commented on (and within) the record of Ether (Jaredite history).  All unflinching testimonies of the actual history of what transpired in the Americas.

McKay without a doubt was a well seasoned leader, thinker, teacher, administrator in many capacities throughout his life.  Your allegation is very lacking in context.  I do not trust your "interpretation."

Sounds very disjointed.  I don't think you understand what you're saying.  The BoM is the "Keystone of our Religion."  It is the world's greatest commentator on the Bible (both OT and NT).  Joseph Smith was NOT confined to the Bible.  He even made "Inspired Revisions" to correct the Bible.  He brought forth other major scriptures including the D&C which unambiguously sustains the BoM:

D&C 3:19 And for this very purpose are these plates preserved, which contain these records—that the promises of the Lord might be fulfilled, which he made to his people;  20 And that the Lamanites might come to the knowledge of their fathers, and that they might know the promises of the Lord, and that they may believe the gospel and rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ, and be glorified through faith in his name, and that through their repentance they might be saved. Amen.

D&C 20:8 And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon; 9 Which contains a record of a fallen people, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also;

 

I think you're overreacting.  And being too confrontational.  Your target is a newbie here, giving his opinion about something in order to clear up some confusion about what Hugh Nibley is reported to have said to him about how McKay reacted. You're arguing with the wrong person.

[longview]

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I think you're overreacting.  And being too confrontational.  Your target is a newbie here, giving his opinion about something in order to clear up some confusion about what Hugh Nibley is reported to have said to him about how McKay reacted. You're arguing with the wrong person.

You may be right about that but it is my First Amendment right to present my perspective on his opinion and make an assessment.  I strongly object to his (and those of his "allies") snide attempts to smear or diminish the memory of Pres. McKay who I consider to be a very wise man with many wonderful accomplishments.

Edited August 11, 2017 by longview

[Stargazer]

8 minutes ago, longview said:

You may be right about that but it is my First Amendment right to present my perspective on his opinion and make an assessment.  I strongly object to his (and those of his "allies") snide attempts to smear or diminish the memory of Pres. McKay who I consider to be a very wise man with many wonderful accomplishments.

Of course, it's your right! I'm not arguing with your right to present your perspective, I'm arguing with your tone in expressing it. I'm permitted to do that, right?

And I didn't get the impression that he was attempting to smear Pres. McKay.

[longview]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Of course, it's your right! I'm not arguing with your right to present your perspective, I'm arguing with your tone in expressing it. I'm permitted to do that, right?

And I didn't get the impression that he was attempting to smear Pres. McKay.

It just felt dirty.