How an Ahistorical Book of Mormon Can Still Be Scripture

[cdowis]

10 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Another example would be Moroni. In the earliest reports he is just an angel. It wasn't until much later that the angel was given a name, at least in print. My best guess is that JS really had transcendent spiritual experiences that led to the creation of the BOM, but that JS' interpretation and report of those experiences reflected his assumptions and understanding.

Sigh.

OK, he wasn't a liar but was transcended spiritually.  

Nibley once said that you can explain anything by simply giving it a name.  

Edited August 14, 2017 by cdowis

[cdowis]

9 hours ago, Dexter Eli said:

I don't think I ever called him a liar, and I understand that one can believe JS didn't literally meet with angels but that he also didn't lie about it. Maybe JS dreamed that he met with angels, and maybe those dreams were inspired by God, and therefore JS didn't lie but actually didn't meet with angels. In other words, when JS explained that he met with angels people may have interpreted that he really met them but perhaand ps his "visions" were dreams of visitations, not actual visitations.

And by some strange coincidence the non-angel was called Moroni. And I suppose this includes other non-angels by the name of John the Baptist, Peter, James and John who were viewed.... dreamed by others as well as JS.

And the three witnesses also saw the non-angel Moroni.

Fascinating.

Edited August 14, 2017 by cdowis

[Gray]

On 8/10/2017 at 4:52 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't see that at all.  Most of those notions and correlations are made from preconceptions and nearly all apriori -- being eisegetically read into the text based on 19th century expectations.  Try reading the text with an unbiased purview, and note how a very different conclusion can be reached.  For example, an anthropologist would immediately want to know where any Amerinds exist who have huge cities, cement, metallurgy, populations in the millions, literacy. etc., as depicted in the BofM.  Nothing even remotely like that can be found among the Algonquins or Iroquois, or any of their neighbors in Joseph's neck of the woods.  They are basically illiterate stone-age people, with small villages, and small populations.  The BofM is utterly foreign to them --confirming them not at all.

The expectation was that Native Americans were some kind of lost tribe of Israel, is that not so? The BOM fits those expectations.

 

 

Quote

Here, as above, each 19th century expectation is self-fulfilling (even the ones supposedly opposing it), and must ignore the best scholarship -- which makes it clear that Joseph could not have composed the book.  It is in a language and dialect of English which he did not and could not know.  No one wanted to reach that conclusion, and no one had a  motive to do so.  That conclusion was the fruit of basic research as part of the much larger FARMS Book of Mormon Critical Text Project -- which I began back in the 1970s.

Is it the best scholarship? How did the EME translators quote direct portions of the KJV, from an edition that hadn't been written yet? What other ways could EME have gotten into the BOM, without positing a 16th century translation? Are there other possibilities that are more parsimonious?

I agree that the EME theory is not following some preconceived notion or expectation from Mormon believers. For that reason I think it bears serious consideration and critical examination.

 

Quote

Those of us who are biblical scholars saw the need for the critical study of the Mormon Canon many decades ago, and have done just that.  Have a look at my 2011 article on “Textual Criticism: Book of Mormon,” in Wikipedia, online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism , or at my “Textual Criticism of the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Update, September 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 77-79, online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=786 .  FARMS has published dozens of  volumes in the Critical Text Project since 1984.  Non-Mormon biblical scholars from around the world will be in Provo next week to confer with us on the phenomenon of chiasmus.

I still see this as a obscure area of scholarship, that hasn't had enough attention for layman like me to be satisfied with any one scholar's theories.

Quote

A lot of non-scholars do adopt that view, without however actually taking a careful look at the issues or at the research which has been done.

Bottom line, the Book of Mormon as an ancient document has serious problems if one accepts the major findings of critical Biblical scholarship to date.

 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

On 8/10/2017 at 8:21 PM, Dexter Eli said:

Many of you impress me with your detailed knowledge on so many different aspects of the BOM. 

I am a simple man. What I don't understand (for those who don't believe the BOM is literally true), how do you then believe JS is a true prophet? It's not like JS claimed the BOM was NOT literally and historically true. In fact, he was pretty adamant about it being the most correct of any book on earth. I can also guess how Brigham Young would have reacted to the idea that the BOM is inspired but not historically accurate. So how can it be inspired by God, and JS be a true prophet of God, if it's not literally true. 

If we can prove that Jesus' story of the prodigal son never actually happened, does that relieve us of the burden of living by the meaning of the story?

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Rather than have those who believe the Book of Mormon is fiction leave the Churh altogether, it's much more advantageous for the adversary of men's souls to have such people remain in the Church so that they might have the opportunity to slowly transform the Church into an apostate false religion from within. Similarly, the gnostics apostates of the meridian Christian Church were also busily at work trying to convince the members of that day that there was no literal Jesus Christ who shed his very real atoning blood for the sins of the world. Rather, they taught that the Being most supposed to be the literal Son of God on earth was actually a sort of apparition who only SEEMED TO BE a real flesh and blood human being who suffered and died for the sins of the world. In fact, these heretics believed no divine atoning sacrifice was necessary because salvation was gained through the acquisition of esoteric knowledge, not by believing in the spiritual efficacy of a "crude" and bloody divine sacrifice. 

So it appears one of most powerful devices in Satan's arsenal to destroy the true Church from within is to propagate the idea that the literal foundational events of Church history didn't actually occur but are nothing more than inspirational myths. If the ideas of the ahistorical Book of Mormon faction are tolerated and allowed to become normalized mainstream thinking within the Church, it's likely a humiliating major schism will eventually erupt in a struggle for supremacy. 

If the church eventually drops its positions on a historical BOM, will you be like the polygamy fundamentalists and defect? Should the leaders put something in the temple recommend to weed out Satan's emissaries who don't believe like you do? Currently the church is allowing these faithless Satanists temple recommends.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 8/14/2017 at 6:58 AM, Gray said:

The expectation was that Native Americans were some kind of lost tribe of Israel, is that not so? The BOM fits those expectations.

In a generic sense, of course, a surface impression does give one the notion that lost Israelite tribes might be at stake, which a close reading immediately negates.  Scholarship depends on hard science and close reading, not on by-gosh-and-by-golly understanding.

Quote

Is it the best scholarship? How did the EME translators quote direct portions of the KJV, from an edition that hadn't been written yet? What other ways could EME have gotten into the BOM, without positing a 16th century translation? Are there other possibilities that are more parsimonious?

I agree that the EME theory is not following some preconceived notion or expectation from Mormon believers. For that reason I think it bears serious consideration and critical examination.

I still see this as a obscure area of scholarship, that hasn't had enough attention for layman like me to be satisfied with any one scholar's theories.

We need a systematic look at such issues, so that we can see specifically how various Bible translations compare with the BofM.  Currently we can show some pre-KJV readings of biblical texts in the BofM.  How did that happen?

For example, "more parte" is in the 1535 Coverdale Bible - Eccl 9:6, Acts 19:32, and Acts 27:12. http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=0&old_q=ge+1&search_form_type=general&q1="more+part"&s=0&t1=en_mcb&ns=0 .  The 1611 KJV also had it in the Book of Mormon form of  "more part" in the same verses of Acts, and it is still there in our modern KJV used by the church. It is also in the earlier Geneva Bible at Acts 19:32. 

Skousen says that

Quote

"another example is the original use of the verb depart with the meaning ‘to part, divide, or separate’. This meaning for depart was regularly used in English Bibles up to the 1611 King James Bible. But by then that meaning for depart had become archaic, so the King James translators systematically eliminated that use of depart from their translation, with the result that so there are no examples in the King James Bible of what had regularly occurred in earlier English translations. Yet the Book of Mormon has this particular use of depart in Helaman 8:11 in the printer’s manuscript: “to smite upon the waters of the Red Sea and they departed hither and thither”. The 1830 typesetter just couldn’t believe that departed was correct, so he replaced the word with parted (thus he set “to smite upon the waters of the Red Sea and they parted hither and thither”). We have examples from the 1557 New Testament of the Geneva Bible like “they departed my raiment among them” (John 19:24), translated in the 1611 King James Bible as “they parted my raiment among them”.  Royal  Skousen, “The Original Text of the Book of Mormon and its Publication by Yale University Press,” Interpreter, 7 (2013):87-96, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-original-text-of-the-book-of-mormon-and-its-publication-by-yale-university-press/  (an updated version of his Aug 5, 2010, FAIR presentation), 

Quote

Bottom line, the Book of Mormon as an ancient document has serious problems if one accepts the major findings of critical Biblical scholarship to date.

I accept the major findings of critical biblical scholarship to date, and do not detect the "major problems" which you claim are present.  Perhaps you'd like to enumerate them for me.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

If the church eventually drops its positions on a historical BOM, will you be like the polygamy fundamentalists and defect? Should the leaders put something in the temple recommend to weed out Satan's emissaries who don't believe like you do? Currently the church is allowing these faithless Satanists temple recommends.

Yes, and I'm one of them (and the Bishop I serve with leans towards these beliefs as well).  One can believe that the Book of Mormon is inspired without believing it is historical.  I believe it contains some great truths and teachings  (same as Christ's parables did).

Edited August 14, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Rather than have those who believe the Book of Mormon is fiction leave the Churh altogether, it's much more advantageous for the adversary of men's souls to have such people remain in the Church so that they might have the opportunity to slowly transform the Church into an apostate false religion from within.

.....

So it appears one of most powerful devices in Satan's arsenal to destroy the true Church from within is to propagate the idea that the literal foundational events of Church history didn't actually occur but are nothing more than inspirational myths. If the ideas of the ahistorical Book of Mormon faction are tolerated and allowed to become normalized mainstream thinking within the Church, it's likely a humiliating major schism will eventually erupt in a struggle for supremacy. 

I see a great deal of fear in your posts, Bobbieaware.  That's just an observation and a feeling I get when I read much of what you write.  I believe that there is room for both types of beliefs from members regarding the Book of Mormon..  Why label those who do not believe in a historically factual BofM as siding with "the adversary of men's souls" or feel that it would be better if they'd just "leave the Church altogether"?  I know many members who no longer believe that the BofM is historical, who are all good members of the church, who are honest, and serve righteously and diligently and treat others as Christ would.   Do you believe God would rather they just leave?

Edited August 14, 2017 by ALarson

[Pete Ahlstrom]

18 hours ago, Dexter Eli said:

This is what is so fascinating about the trend to argue that the church is true while admitting the BOM is not literally true. I am surprised by how many active mormons are willing to continue to believe the church is true while not believing the BOM is literally true. There seem to be a lot of roadblocks to being able to believe both of those things. 

I don't think one can have both beliefs, too.  The authority of the church rests on the literalness of Joseph Smith's experiences, with the book of mormon being the principle event, according to the church.  So, once one believes that the book of mormon is fiction, the authority is gone.

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

If we can prove that Jesus' story of the prodigal son never actually happened, does that relieve us of the burden of living by the meaning of the story?

If the speaker of the prodigal son story never lived, then that certainly undermines it as a command. That is the reasons for living by it are shaken up. 

[Dexter Eli]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

If we can prove that Jesus' story of the prodigal son never actually happened, does that relieve us of the burden of living by the meaning of the story?

This is a ridiculous comparison. The parable of the prodigal son was just that, a parable. It was known as a parable before the story was told, not changed to a parable thousands of years later, as well. 

A better example, Gray, would be this: If Christ didn't REALLY atone for our sins, you would admit that changes everything, right? So why are you trying to argue that whether things really happened or not doesn't matter. You would certainly admit it does matter. Certain things must have really happened: Christ actually existing, the atonement actually happening, the resurrection occurring. Right? Or does none of it matter? It is certainly reasonable for one to believe that JS must have actually met with Moroni, Peter, James, John, etc, for the church to be true. Where the line is between must have happened and didn't necessarily need to have actually happened, well, that is an interesting question, and that is what I am asking the readers here. Where is your line? (Not just yours Gray, but anyone who is reading, I would love to hear your responses). 

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I don't think one can have both beliefs, too.  The authority of the church rests on the literalness of Joseph Smith's experiences, with the book of mormon being the principle event, according to the church.  So, once one believes that the book of mormon is fiction, the authority is gone.

I agree..If one thinks about it..every primary, Sunday school, and testimony meetings are centered on the teachings of this book.

[Dexter Eli]

16 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Quite frankly, it's a lonely road. Just by way of illustration, I don't feel perfectly at home in this forum which is mostly traditional with some nuanced and critical views sprinkled in, but I also do not feel at home at the Mormon Discussinos forum, which is decidedly critical and largely dismissive of all aspects of Mormonism. After spending time lurking in both, I found that I much preferred discussion here. You're right. It's not easy, and I've simply picked the place I'm drawn to (both forum and religious tradition), despite the discomfort. Hopefully, my comments addressing the idea of going generally Christian above are sufficient, but let me know.

Thanks for the dialogue, Dexter!

Benjamin, thanks for answering each of my specific questions. Your beliefs are very interesting to me because, if you hadn't noticed, I tend to view it as GBH and many others have directed, which is, take it literally or it's a fraud. I'm not saying that's the way to go, but it's what makes sense to me. I can't comprehend a God that would "inspire" JS in such non literal ways. If it's true, I think it's necessary that most of the things JS said really happened REALLY HAPPENED! If those things didn't happen, I don't see how it can be true. But that's just my view. And I can certainly recognize that even if not literally true, the BOM can still be a remarkable book that can change lives. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

52 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I agree..If one thinks about it..every primary, Sunday school, and testimony meetings are centered on the teachings of this book.

Yeah, historicity is baked into the system. In my opinion, to have an inspired non-historical book of mormon, one would have to think Joseph Smith was making it up or that God tricked him into believing what he claimed. Either way, it's very problematic. 

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I don't think one can have both beliefs, too.  The authority of the church rests on the literalness of Joseph Smith's experiences, with the book of mormon being the principle event, according to the church.  So, once one believes that the book of mormon is fiction, the authority is gone.

Why can't we view authority as a construct for the purposes of an organization needing to be run by those in charge of the organization.  Similar to how a government only has the authority to issue a driver's license, church leaders are the only ones authorized to perform ordinances and delegate that authority for the institution.  Its not that God has authorized the church as much as it that the church has authorized its agents to do the official work on the church.  

There is no way that humans can authenticate whether or not God authorized everything for everyone, to me that is a personal and subjective determination that each individual has to answer for themselves.  

In essence the church has authority because all organizations have authority to operate for their best interests.  God's authority is a claim the church makes, but it can't be universalized or authenticated in any objective way for everyone's satisfaction, so its a personal application question, do you feel the church's authority was efficacious for you individually.  If the answer is yes, then it was efficacious.  If the answer is no, then it wasn't.  This is how I look at authority.  

[hope_for_things]

32 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Yeah, historicity is baked into the system. In my opinion, to have an inspired non-historical book of mormon, one would have to think Joseph Smith was making it up or that God tricked him into believing what he claimed. Either way, it's very problematic. 

What about an alternative perspective.  Whatever Joseph was trying to accomplish with the BoM, whether a fraud to make money on one end of the spectrum, or as a divine revelation from God about a lost people on the other end of the spectrum, that original purpose of the book is largely lost to us in 2017.  We really have no connection to the time and place and cultural context of JS and his contemporaries.  Their world was so very different than the world we live in today.  I have a hard time relating to them.  

So what is the BoM for me today in 2017?  Well, isn't it exactly what I want to make of it?  Its literature, whether its loosely based on a true story or its an extremely accurate portrayal of real people, or its a completely invented moral tale, its still just words on a page that tell a story thats very far removed from my time period.  

I recognize what the tradition of Mormonism says about the BoM is very different from the way I'm talking about it.  Thats ok, I'm getting more comfortable all the time with my non-traditional approach.  I'm trying to approach the BoM as a way to look for lessons about life that I can apply to my modern day life.  I could do this with any numbers of books in a multitude of genres of writing, but for the LDS church tradition, they've chosen this text to review and explore.  Its not a perfect text, it has flaws and areas I think are problematic, but those problems also provide opportunities to learn as we point out the problematic elements.  I think there is much good we can get from the BoM, depending on how we approach it.  

[Dexter Eli]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

In essence the church has authority because all organizations have authority to operate for their best interests.  God's authority is a claim the church makes, but it can't be universalized or authenticated in any objective way for everyone's satisfaction, so its a personal application question, do you feel the church's authority was efficacious for you individually.  If the answer is yes, then it was efficacious.  If the answer is no, then it wasn't.  This is how I look at authority.  

But the church has gone to great efforts to argue against this type of reasoning. Their claim to truth is a claim based on literally receiving the authority from Christ's original church. This "if I think it is real, it is real" type of claim to authority is what the church says other religions do and that it it not sufficient and therefore, no other church is true. 

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Dexter Eli said:

But the church has gone to great efforts to argue against this type of reasoning. Their claim to truth is a claim based on literally receiving the authority from Christ's original church. This "if I think it is real, it is real" type of claim to authority is what the church says other religions do and that it it not sufficient and therefore, no other church is true. 

Yes, I understand what the institution is officially promoting.  Can you imagine an institution that doesn't try to put itself in the best possible light?  I expect this kind of behavior from most institutions.  I personally would like to see a more nuanced approach, its amazing how nuanced this first presidency statement from 1978 was.  

Quote

STATEMENT OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY OF

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

REGARDING GOD’S LOVE FOR ALL MANKIND

February 15, 1978

Based upon ancient and modern revelation, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gladly teaches and declares the Christian doctrine that all men and women are brothers and sisters, not only by blood relationship from common mortal progenitors but as literal spirit children of an Eternal Father.

The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.
The Hebrew prophets prepared the way for the coming of Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah, who should provide salvation for all mankind who believe in the gospel.

Consistent with these truths, we believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation, either in this life or in the life to come.

We also declare that the gospel of Jesus Christ, restored to His Church in our day, provides the only way to a mortal life of happiness and a fullness of joy forever. For those who have not received this gospel, the opportunity will come to them in the life hereafter if not in this life.

Our message therefore is one of special love and concern for the eternal welfare of all men and women, regardless of religious belief, race, or nationality, knowing that we are truly brothers and sisters because we are sons and daughters of the same Eternal Father.

Really, only one paragraph in this whole statement sounds at all exclusivistic, but it goes against the grain of the overarching message in many ways.  The paragraph stating "we believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation" is pretty universalistic in its implications.  

So, yes the institution would say that Mormonism contains the full truth and authority, yet at the same time, they say that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation.  That sounds pretty wide open to me.  

 

[Dexter Eli]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 

So, yes the institution would say that Mormonism contains the full truth and authority, yet at the same time, they say that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation.  That sounds pretty wide open to me.  

 

I agree. But it is just good PR. In its heart of hearts, you and I both know the Church would much more emphatically state that the gospel was restored through ordinations, etc., literally and no other church has that authority. 

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Dexter Eli said:

I agree. But it is just good PR. In its heart of hearts, you and I both know the Church would much more emphatically state that the gospel was restored through ordinations, etc., literally and no other church has that authority. 

Do you believe that the bolded part above could not be true unless the BofM was historically factual?

[Dexter Eli]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Do you believe that the bolded part above could not be true unless the BofM was historically factual?

Are you asking me if it's possible for the bolded part to be true without the BOM being literally true?

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Dexter Eli said:

Are you asking me if it's possible for the bolded part to be true without the BOM being literally true?

Well, the teachings in the BofM could be literally true without it being historically factual.  I'm asking if the BofM events actually had to have happened for the bolded part above to be true. ("the gospel was restored through ordinations, etc., literally and no other church has that authority."

[Dexter Eli]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, the teachings in the BofM could be literally true without it being historically factual.  I'm asking if the BofM events actually had to have happened for the bolded part above to be true. ("the gospel was restored through ordinations, etc., literally and no other church has that authority."

I never said anything about the teachings being literally true. I have consistently talked about whether the BOM is literally true, historically accurate, did the things really happen or not. 

Is it possible that the BOM is not historically accurate but God did in fact send Peter, James, Johh, Melchizadek, Elijah and on and on to literally restore the keys to JS? Sure, it's possible. 

Could I ever believe that that is how it went down? NOT EVER. 

I don't see how anyone can swallow the contradictions: The BOM is not literally true but Moroni (a character from the BOM) appeared (or didn't appear) to JS to help him find the plates (which didn't really exist), and JS translated them (or didn't), and 11 witnesses saw them (or didn't) and Moroni (who didn't exist) took them (even though they didn't exist) back, and JS said the BOM is the most correct of any book on earth. So I'm supposed to be willing to accept that tons of things JS said about the BOM are NOT true, but then I'm supposed to believe JS when he says Peter James and John gave him the authority by the laying on of hands? 

No way. 

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Dexter Eli said:

I never said anything about the teachings being literally true. I have consistently talked about whether the BOM is literally true, historically accurate, did the things really happen or not. 

Is it possible that the BOM is not historically accurate but God did in fact send Peter, James, Johh, Melchizadek, Elijah and on and on to literally restore the keys to JS? Sure, it's possible. 

Could I ever believe that that is how it went down? NOT EVER. 

I don't see how anyone can swallow the contradictions: The BOM is not literally true but Moroni (a character from the BOM) appeared (or didn't appear) to JS to help him find the plates (which didn't really exist), and JS translated them (or didn't), and 11 witnesses saw them (or didn't) and Moroni (who didn't exist) took them (even though they didn't exist) back, and JS said the BOM is the most correct of any book on earth. So I'm supposed to be willing to accept that tons of things JS said about the BOM are NOT true, but then I'm supposed to believe JS when he says Peter James and John gave him the authority by the laying on of hands? 

No way. 

And you have every right to believe as you do.  However, others who disagree with you have that right as well (and I imagine you agree with that).  I love reading the BofM and I quote it often and find great wisdom within its pages.  I do not believe all of the stories or characters actually existed though (and I feel the same way about the Bible even though it also contains some great truths).  

 

[Dexter Eli]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And you have every right to believe as you do.  However, others who disagree with you have that right as well (and I imagine you agree with that).  I love reading the BofM and I quote it often and find great wisdom within its pages.  I do not believe all of the stories or characters actually existed though (and I feel the same way about the Bible even though it also contains some great truths).  

 

Of course. But are you saying Peter James and John (and all the others) actually visited JS but that the BOM is not literally true? I get that you like the book, but I'm more interested in how you view JS regarding his other claims if you are willing to not believe his claims about the veracity of the BOM.