How an Ahistorical Book of Mormon Can Still Be Scripture

[Meerkat]

On 8/8/2017 at 9:35 AM, hope_for_things said:

Why is faith important?  I sincerely mean this.  When I think about having faith in God, this is a being that I can't prove exists, that I personally think may just be the way human minds work that have evolved over time, and an experience that people feel within their mind.  Yet I can see some value in this experience, and I want to explore that.  But if God is just an experience in my mind, what does that mean for faith.  Faith = trust, that is how I define faith, if I have trust in something I have faith in that thing that it is reliable, that I can count on it.  What does it mean to have trust in a feeling in our brain?  Should I trust my instincts, is that having faith in God in my paradigm?  But I know a lot of my instincts can be externally influenced, and I know the flaws of bias influence all my emotions and thinking, so my skeptical brain questions a lot of my instincts.  How can I have faith.  Why is faith important.  I want to know, as a person that's trying to approach religion again, but that has a very rational/skeptical mindset about it.  

Hope, I love your questions.  They have a ring of sincerity to me, rather than skepticism.  If that is true, then keep asking. My experience is that the answers will come from a loving Heavenly Father.

When you think about faith and skepticism, would you agree that the evidence keeps them pretty much in balance?  In other words, believing either proposition requires faith because convincing evidence on either side is lacking.  Yet the faithful accept their weak evidence as true, as do the skeptics.

What is a person to do?  You can ask an opinion of men like me.  We will tell you what we believe and why we believe it.  Its the same on the Skeptics side.  In order for faith in God to work, I believe we need have hope there is a God who will respond to that desire and help us believe.

What do you think about this statement from Alma 32?

"26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.
            27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
            28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me."

So, in my opinion, believing either way requires desire that goes through a process to become faith in God, or not.  If we choose skepticism, the end of that road is uncertainty and worry about what happens on the other side of this veil of sin and sorrow.  

If we choose God, we gain confidence in an eternal future.  I'm out of steam for tonight.  I will try to put more thought in tomorrow.  Thanks.

Meerkat

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Hope, I love your questions.  They have a ring of sincerity to me, rather than skepticism.  If that is true, then keep asking. My experience is that the answers will come from a loving Heavenly Father.

When you think about faith and skepticism, would you agree that the evidence keeps them pretty much in balance?  In other words, believing either proposition requires faith because convincing evidence on either side is lacking.  Yet the faithful accept their weak evidence as true, as do the skeptics.

What is a person to do?  You can ask an opinion of men like me.  We will tell you what we believe and why we believe it.  Its the same on the Skeptics side.  In order for faith in God to work, I believe we need have hope there is a God who will respond to that desire and help us believe.

What do you think about this statement from Alma 32?

"26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.
            27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
            28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me."

So, in my opinion, believing either way requires desire that goes through a process to become faith in God, or not.  If we choose skepticism, the end of that road is uncertainty and worry about what happens on the other side of this veil of sin and sorrow.  

If we choose God, we gain confidence in an eternal future.  I'm out of steam for tonight.  I will try to put more thought in tomorrow.  Thanks.

Meerkat

Thanks Meerkat, appreciate your response.

I'm not sure I agree with the comparison to belief in God vs. skepticism.  See, I view skepticism as necessary and important element of critical thinking.  I don't believe in blind faith in religious claims.  There are just too many that fall apart on any kind of scrutiny.  

Now, I don't want to get caught up in cynicism about all things religious, you are right I have sincere desires to find value in Mormon religious tradition.  I am looking for ways to look at this God idea, that also doesn't make me feel like I'm being inauthentic to my logical brain.  

I like Alma 32, when you apply that advice I think it ultimately works for most things in life.  Plant the seed, if it produces fruit then go with it.  But the problem is sometimes we think we are planting a seed for something very specific, like a seed of corn, but then when the plant grows into a carrot, instead of questioning why and wondering what's going on, we just accept that it produced fruit and move on with it.  I think this works with religion often.  Some authority figure tells us that God wants us to follow a rule or do something, and instead of questioning the purpose or considering that advice along side the knowledge we already have and our unique circumstances, many people just blindly follow that advice, perhaps sacrificing things that are higher priority because they don't properly evaluate the priority, they just assume that the church leader's proclamation trumps the evaluation process.  This kind of thinking is then justified later through post hoc justification, because the person gets a good feeling for sacrificing those higher priority items for following the advice of the authority figure and assuming that God must have inspired that leader to give this command with very specific knowledge of how it would impact each individual that hears the command.  

I believe all that is very problematic.  I also find the idea that God, supposedly an omniscient deity, is trying to teach us to learn through this process of blind obedience a problem.  What are people learning by not using their brains?  If God also created us, didn't God also create our brain, and our ability to critically think, and shouldn't we use all our faculties and experience and decision making skills to determine what the most important priorities of life are?  Wouldn't a deity value that kind of thinking over just blind obedience?  I really don't see a lot of value in this idea of blind obedience, and yes I'm calling it blind even though I know that term carries some specific baggage in Mormon circles, but I find it appropriate.  I would think a God that wants us to become more divine, that wants us to learn and grow, would want us to do the opposite or God wouldn't have created creatures with this capacity.

So I follow Alma's advice in a limited sense.  I follow this idea that things that produce fruit are worthy of consideration for future fruit production.  I don't just expect that everything religion has in its basket of tradition = good fruit.  I find a lot of it is damaging and hurtful and I reject those elements and try to find the good fruit, and throw away the rotten stuff.  Hopefully that makes some sense.   

[Meerkat]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks Meerkat, appreciate your response.

I'm not sure I agree with the comparison to belief in God vs. skepticism.  See, I view skepticism as necessary and important element of critical thinking.  I don't believe in blind faith in religious claims.  There are just too many that fall apart on any kind of scrutiny.  

Now, I don't want to get caught up in cynicism about all things religious, you are right I have sincere desires to find value in Mormon religious tradition.  I am looking for ways to look at this God idea, that also doesn't make me feel like I'm being inauthentic to my logical brain.  

I like Alma 32, when you apply that advice I think it ultimately works for most things in life.  Plant the seed, if it produces fruit then go with it.  But the problem is sometimes we think we are planting a seed for something very specific, like a seed of corn, but then when the plant grows into a carrot, instead of questioning why and wondering what's going on, we just accept that it produced fruit and move on with it.  I think this works with religion often.  Some authority figure tells us that God wants us to follow a rule or do something, and instead of questioning the purpose or considering that advice along side the knowledge we already have and our unique circumstances, many people just blindly follow that advice, perhaps sacrificing things that are higher priority because they don't properly evaluate the priority, they just assume that the church leader's proclamation trumps the evaluation process.  This kind of thinking is then justified later through post hoc justification, because the person gets a good feeling for sacrificing those higher priority items for following the advice of the authority figure and assuming that God must have inspired that leader to give this command with very specific knowledge of how it would impact each individual that hears the command.  

I believe all that is very problematic.  I also find the idea that God, supposedly an omniscient deity, is trying to teach us to learn through this process of blind obedience a problem.  What are people learning by not using their brains?  If God also created us, didn't God also create our brain, and our ability to critically think, and shouldn't we use all our faculties and experience and decision making skills to determine what the most important priorities of life are?  Wouldn't a deity value that kind of thinking over just blind obedience?  I really don't see a lot of value in this idea of blind obedience, and yes I'm calling it blind even though I know that term carries some specific baggage in Mormon circles, but I find it appropriate.  I would think a God that wants us to become more divine, that wants us to learn and grow, would want us to do the opposite or God wouldn't have created creatures with this capacity.

So I follow Alma's advice in a limited sense.  I follow this idea that things that produce fruit are worthy of consideration for future fruit production.  I don't just expect that everything religion has in its basket of tradition = good fruit.  I find a lot of it is damaging and hurtful and I reject those elements and try to find the good fruit, and throw away the rotten stuff.  Hopefully that makes some sense.   

I agree that skepticism is a component of critical thinking, and is essential to a point. We use skepticism to apply scrutiny to important decisions.  There comes a time when a decision needs to be made after weighing the risks, and step out on the limb of faith one way or another.  If, through experience, the trajectory needs to be adjusted or abandoned, well, That's why God gave us a brain, right?.  Maybe skepticism Wasn't the best word.  Perhaps agnosticism would be more fitting.

Obedience, as in keeping the Ten Commandments, is important. If we want to be happy, we "learn" to keep them for the right reasons.  We learn by making bad decisions that bring us back to the Commandments in an enlightened state.  No more "blind obedience."  

Same thing regarding over committing, or living lives that are out of balance.  That probably happens to most of us at one time or another. Thankfully, God gave us brains to determine how to set priorities for ourselves.  You aren't suggesting Mormons by and large don't use their brains, are you?

Is it possible for skepticism to be applied too generously, resulting in "blind ignorance?"  I see that as a potential risk.  But it's an individual thing.  I'm accountable for my decisions and the judgment I put into them.  Your decisions are yours to make.

Regarding which fruits one may want to cultivate, we are back to rational thinking again using our brains. I believe Mormons are known to encourage education.  "The glory of God is intelligence." Joseph Smith taught "I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves."  

Regarding Church leaders trumping the evaluation process, that may be a fair point.  I know I have fallen into that category in years long past.  But that gave me opportunity to exercise my brain and learn.  

I guess we all evaluate what we think we see in others.  And yes, it does make sense to use that judgment as we set the sails for our own lives. So there you go.  Back where we started.  How to find reasons for faith enough to make a decision.  I wish you the best.

[cdowis]

My skepticism has strengthened my knowledge and understanding pf the Gospel.  It is interesting that the Lord meets my skepticism with teaching me.  While I accepted the First Vision that did not allay my skepticism on how that all worked -- was this a real event?  Over the years I gradually saw this in my mind's eye as something natural, as reality.  So my faith grew because of initial hesitation to accept it as reality.

It happened, but it was not a real experience, if that makes sense.  Over the years I could see it in my mind's eye as something real, natural. 

Edited August 23, 2017 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

4 hours ago, Meerkat said:

I agree that skepticism is a component of critical thinking, and is essential to a point. We use skepticism to apply scrutiny to important decisions.  There comes a time when a decision needs to be made after weighing the risks, and step out on the limb of faith one way or another.  If, through experience, the trajectory needs to be adjusted or abandoned, well, That's why God gave us a brain, right?.  Maybe skepticism Wasn't the best word.  Perhaps agnosticism would be more fitting.

Obedience, as in keeping the Ten Commandments, is important. If we want to be happy, we "learn" to keep them for the right reasons.  We learn by making bad decisions that bring us back to the Commandments in an enlightened state.  No more "blind obedience."  

Same thing regarding over committing, or living lives that are out of balance.  That probably happens to most of us at one time or another. Thankfully, God gave us brains to determine how to set priorities for ourselves.  You aren't suggesting Mormons by and large don't use their brains, are you?

Is it possible for skepticism to be applied too generously, resulting in "blind ignorance?"  I see that as a potential risk.  But it's an individual thing.  I'm accountable for my decisions and the judgment I put into them.  Your decisions are yours to make.

Regarding which fruits one may want to cultivate, we are back to rational thinking again using our brains. I believe Mormons are known to encourage education.  "The glory of God is intelligence." Joseph Smith taught "I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves."  

Regarding Church leaders trumping the evaluation process, that may be a fair point.  I know I have fallen into that category in years long past.  But that gave me opportunity to exercise my brain and learn.  

I guess we all evaluate what we think we see in others.  And yes, it does make sense to use that judgment as we set the sails for our own lives. So there you go.  Back where we started.  How to find reasons for faith enough to make a decision.  I wish you the best.

What makes the Ten Commandments sacrosanct? To the Agnostic what is so important about having a different God. Or in keeping the Sabbath day Holy?

[cdowis]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

What makes the Ten Commandments sacrosanct? To the Agnostic what is so important about having a different God. Or in keeping the Sabbath day Holy?

We will be judged by them at Judgement Day and how we will live for eternity.

  Otherwise, no big deal.

[thesometimesaint]

5 hours ago, cdowis said:

We will be judged by them at Judgement Day and how we will live for eternity.

  Otherwise, no big deal.

That doesn't answer the question. It assumes that we and they will experience a Judgement Day and live for eternity. Agnostics aren't that into Abrahamic religious beliefs.

[hagoth7]

On 8/8/2017 at 7:18 AM, Gray said:

...Scripture isn't about history, it's about spiritual teachings.

I believe it's about both.

It's also a history of God keeping his promises.  Which in and of itself is extremely faith-promoting.

I believe that when you claim such kept promises were ahistorical, you've sifted out important/crucial truths about how God interacts with mankind.

Edited August 23, 2017 by hagoth7

[cdowis]

33 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

That doesn't answer the question.

It answers the question precisely.

It assumes that we and they will experience a Judgement Day and live for eternity. Agnostics aren't that into Abrahamic religious beliefs.

It's irrelevant  what we think or assume.

 

Edited August 23, 2017 by cdowis

[Tom N]

On 8/17/2017 at 6:53 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

I appreciate your sincerity and value your advice, always. But... my disagreement with the general premise of this quotation is the exact reason I began this thread. If the BOM is based on true spiritual experience/truth/etc., whether the book is historical or not will not change the effect of following its precepts.

I'm sorry that it takes me so long to react to what's going on on this board. To interact in such a forum is really quite foreign to my normal lifestyle. Ben, if you and your family were not such good friends I probably wouldn't bother to follow this discussion at all. But since I feel an overwhelming debt of gratitude to you all for literally saving me from the pit of despair I feel that I need to answer you in a way that will show you where I stand on the BOM and its historicity.

You say "whether the book is historical or not will not change the effect of following its precepts." That is true if you only look at its moral and ethical teachings. But there are precepts that are based on and prophecy actual historical events. For example, in 3 Nephi 21 Christ prophesies, "

2 And behold, this is the thing which I will give unto you for a sign—for verily I say unto you that when these things which I declare unto you, and which I shall declare unto you hereafter of myself, and by the power of the Holy Ghost which shall be given unto you of the Father, shall be made known unto the Gentiles that they may know concerning this people who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, and concerning this my people who shall be scattered by them;

If the BOM is ahistorical this prophecy could not possibly come to pass, because the people spoken of, the remnant of Jacob descended from Lehi, are only a fiction, an invention of Joseph Smith. The Lord continues His prophesying:

22 But if they [the gentiles, meaning us] will repent and hearken unto my words, and harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them, and they shall come in unto the covenant and be numbered among this the remnant of Jacob [who don't actually exist if the BOM is ahistorical], unto whom I have given this land [would that be a fictional land? Or...?]for their inheritance;

23 And they shall assist my people, the remnant of Jacob, and also as many of the house of Israel as shall come, that they may build a city, which shall be called the New Jerusalem.

24 And then shall they assist my people that they may be gathered in, who are scattered upon all the face of the land, in unto the New Jerusalem.

25 And then shall the power of heaven come down among them; and I also will be in the midst. (3 Ne, 21, emphasis and commentary added)

So here we have a prediction of a future event that is based on the historicity of the BOM. If you don't care whether or not this will actually happen then an ahistorical view will work just fine. But if you do care, and I do indeed care, and care with a deep and fervent longing, then that care and the hope it engenders are very much dependant on the BOM being a real, historical and prophetic book.

D&C 49 also prophesies of things that are historically dependant: 

24 But before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as the rose.

If the BOM is just inspired fiction you might as well prophecy that the Munchkins will blossom as the lily. After all, the Wizard of Oz has lots of good ethical and moral teachings we can learn from.

On 8/17/2017 at 6:53 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

Someone who has carefully considered the topic, taken in a wide range of information, lived the promises of the BOM, but comes to the conclusion its ahistorical will likely see more options than the either-or approach gives, and rhetoric that invalidates their other options, can make them feel like a total and complete outsider (they already feel like an outsider, trust me, I know ).

I could spend a lot of time discussing the variety of issues you raise, but I have decided to focus on the feeling of being an outsider. That is a place I've spent most of my life for a wide variety of reasons, many having to do with being a Mormon in a Non-Mormon world. But within Mormonism there are also outsider views such as yours on one end of a spectrum, and mine (which I am about to define) on the other. In the middle there is the average, normal acceptance that the BOM is a good book, a true record and has some value and we should read it regularly. In my estimation that position takes the BOM far too lightly.

I base my thinking and feeling about the BOM on the book itself and D&C 84, which is where I'll start:

54 And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—

55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.

56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.

57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

58 That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion. (D&C 84)

Now freaky words and phrases like 'condemnation' and 'scourge and judgment to be poured out' are really only scary if you take them seriously like I do. But if the BOM is only fiction and JS got his inspiration from just thinking deeply enough to be touched by some divine essence then, pooh, ain't nothing to make no nevermind about. Be nice and we all gets to go down the glory road. More on that in a bit.

So, okay, I take section 84 seriously, what do I do about it? I check that word 'condemnation' in the BOM and find a couple of very interesting passages that tell me. First in 3 Nephi 26:

9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.

10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation. (3 Nephi 26)

There you have it. Want to escape from condemnation? Just believe the things that have been given to try our faith, then greater things will be given and that will inform us that we are no longer under condemnation. The question arises, is it enough to say that we have faith in the very book we are reading as an ahistorical, inspired fiction? Are we going to get the greater things promised if we believe the promise was only fictive? I don't think there's much to be expected if what is written in 3 Nephi is only Joseph's fevered imagination talking. But I believe that what we have here are actual words of Jesus Christ, the risen Lord as He spoke to real people at a real place it a real time.

We're even told what the promised greater things are about:

1 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had told these things he expounded them unto the multitude; and he did expound all things unto them, both great and small.

2 And he saith: These scriptures, which ye had not with you, the Father commanded that I should give unto you; for it was wisdom in him that they should be given unto future generations.

3 And he did expound all things, even from the beginning until the time that he should come in his glory—yea, even all things which should come upon the face of the earth, even until the elements should melt with fervent heat, and the earth should be wrapt together as a scroll, and the heavens and the earth should pass away;

4 And even unto the great and last day, when all people, and all kindreds, and all nations and tongues shall standbefore God, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

5 If they be good, to the resurrection of everlasting life; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of damnation; being on a parallel, the one on the one hand and the other on the other hand, according to the mercy, and the justice, and the holiness which is in Christ, who was before the world began.

6 And now there cannot be written in this book even a hundredth part of the things which Jesus did truly teach unto the people;

7 But behold the plates of Nephi do contain the more part of the things which he taught the people.

8 And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken.

Moroni gives the other passage I referred to above. It's in Ether 4, and Moroni comes off as being even more intense than his father was in 3 Nephi. Here's what he has to say:

8 And he that will contend against the word of the Lord, let him be accursed; and he that shall deny these things, let him be accursed; for unto them will I show no greater things, saith Jesus Christ; for I am he who speaketh. (Ether 4)

I went to that verse first because I think that word 'accursed' is kind of an attention-getter. Like 'condemnation' and 'scourge'. I personally would like to avoid being the recipient of those things. And how is that done?

11 But he that believeth these things which I have spoken, him will I visit with the manifestations of my Spirit, and he shall know and bear record. For because of my Spirit he shall know that these things are true; for it persuadeth men to do good.

12 And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leadeth men to all good; he that will not believemy words will not believe me—that I am; and he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For behold, I am the Father, I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.

13 Come unto me, O ye Gentiles, and I will show unto you the greater things, the knowledge which is hid up because of unbelief. [These greater things are what Moroni says he sealed up to come forth later. That would be in BOMII, the Sequel, which JS will be inspired to write as a follow-up, or will never appear if the BOM is fiction, inspired or otherwise. But I firmly believe that BOM is not fiction and the time will come when these things will come forth.]

14 Come unto me, O ye house of Israel, and it shall be made manifest unto you how great things the Father hath laid up for you, from the foundation of the world; and it hath not come unto you, because of unbelief.

15 Behold, when ye shall rend that veil of unbelief which doth cause you to remain in your awful state of wickedness, and hardness of heart, and blindness of mind, then shall the great and marvelous things which have been hid up from the foundation of the world from you... be unfolded in the eyes of all the people. [Ether 4, commentary added]

There are great blessings available to those who will "rend that veil of unbelief". To not rend the veil is to remain in an "awful state of wickedness, and hardness of heart, and blindness of mind." That state is most frightening when you realize that it is self imposed. We all self identify who we are and where we stand. If we want to say we see because we are offended by the thought that we may be blind when we still refuse to turn on the light of the Spirit then we will still remain in the dark. However most of the time when people blind themselves they're not frightened at all because they are truly blind to the danger they are in.  

I know that in my case at least, when someone points out a blind spot my first reaction is to get all huffy and deny that I cannot see. It takes some often painful and difficult to bear experience to humble me enough that I can begin to see. So I'm not surprised at the reactions I get when I hint at the painful thought that since the church has been around for 187 years and these promised records have not come forth maybe we need to reorder the way we're thinking and doing things. What I see are blank stares, complaisant smiles, or looks of thoughtless stupor. No one seems to want to take this stuff seriously. And certainly no one wants to think of him/herself as blind. And so I feel like an outsider among the flock. Like you, but on the other side of the proposition.

39 ¶ And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?

41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. (John 9)

There have also been some posts on the board about salvation coming or not coming to people who are basically good. Some of these talk about how, in the opinion of the poster God will respond in a way that they see as Godly. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I like going to the scriptures to see what they say. This description of the hereafter sounds pretty encouraging:

89 And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory... which surpasses all understanding;

90 And no man knows it except him to whom God has revealed it. (D&C 76)

We are also told that those who inherit this particular glory are redeemed, (v 85), are heirs of salvation, (v 88) and shall receive the ministration of the Holy Spirit (v 86) and the administering of angels (v 88). That looks like Heaven to me, the promise of wonderful things, no less; glory... which surpasses all understanding! Who can say that is not a tremendous and generous promise? Some of you probably caught on that the ellipse after 'glory' removed the word 'telestial'. But when you just look at the positive things that are said about the telestial kingdom it turns out to be a really exciting place to go, well beyond what many imagine heaven to be. It is not hell. It is not a punishment. It is a reward. And who goes there? Well, among others:

99 [T]hese are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.

100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch; (D&C 76)

The scripture could have gone on; some of Buddha, some of Krishna, some of Confucius, some of Joseph or Brigham or Thomas or Gordon. (Notice that all those listed in section 76 are true prophets of God.) God has prepared a place for all good people. And all bad people for that matter. And the place for each one will be perfectly suited to them because it will be according to their desires.

3 And it is requisite with the justice of God that men should be judged according to their works; and if their works were good in this life, and the desires of their hearts were good, that they should also, at the last day, be restored unto that which is good.

4 And if their works are evil they shall be restored unto them for evil. Therefore, all things shall be restored to their proper order, every thing to its natural frame—mortality raised to immortality, corruption to incorruption—raised to endless happiness to inherit the kingdom of God, or to endless misery to inherit the kingdom of the devil, the one on one hand, the other on the other—

5 The one raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good; and the other to evil according to his desires of evil; for as he has desired to do evil all the day long even so shall he have his reward of evil when the night cometh.

6 And so it is on the other hand. If he hath repented of his sins, and desired righteousness until the end of his days, even so he shall be rewarded unto righteousness.

7 These are they that are redeemed of the Lord; yea, these are they that are taken out, that are delivered from that endless night of darkness; and thus they stand or fall; for behold, they are their own judges, whether to do good or do evil.

12 And now behold, is the meaning of the word restoration to take a thing of a natural state and place it in an unnatural state, or to place it in a state opposite to its nature?

13 O, my son, this is not the case; but the meaning of the word restoration is to bring back again evil for evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for devilish—good for that which is good; righteous for that which is righteous; just for that which is just; merciful for that which is merciful.

14 Therefore, my son, see that you are merciful unto your brethren; deal justly, judge righteously, and do good continually; and if ye do all these things then shall ye receive your reward; yea, ye shall have mercy restored unto you again; ye shall have justice restored unto you again; ye shall have a righteous judgment restored unto you again; and ye shall have good rewarded unto you again.

15 For that which ye do send out shall return unto you again, and be restored; therefore, the word restoration more fully condemneth the sinner, and justifieth him not at all. (Alma 41 emphasis added)

• So no one need complain about God being unfair. We self-determine our fate both here and hereafter. The gospel gives us a ladder to climb, and if we choose another ladder we will get whatever we aspire to by climbing it:
•  
• 27 For every man receiveth wages of him whom he listeth to obey, and this according to the words of the spirit of prophecy; therefore let it be according to the truth. (Alma 3)

  23 Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life.(2 Ne. 10)

• A close look at D&C 76 shows that the kingdoms of glory are not just rewards and places of repose. There is a lot of activity involved. In other words you don't just get assigned to a kingdom, you get a job. And you don't get a job that requires PhD qualifications by flaunting your high school diploma and shouting about how unfair it will be not to get what you think you somehow deserve because you've been a good guy. You will get blessings beyond your wildest imaginings, but they will be exactly according to the works, both in quantity and in type, that you performed. God is absolutely fair.

To sum up: I absolutely believe the BOM to be a real historical record.

I believe there are prophecies in the BOM that will be fulfilled in factual and historical realities.

Among these prophecies is the promise of the New Jerusalem to be built by the  remnant of Jacob who are the descendents of Lehi , real people descended from a real person whose record is found in the Book of Mormon.

There will also be records that will come forth, including the sealed records of the Jaredites (Ether 4), more of the words of Christ (3 Ne. 26), more of the record of John (1 Ne. 14,Ether 4, D&C 7), the writing of Enoch (D&C 107: 57), more of God's words to the Jews, the Nephites, the lost tribes of Israel, and eventually His words to all nations (2 Ne. 29: 12-14)

The coming forth of these records is dependant upon the faithfulness of those who desire to receive them. Unbelief will keep them from coming forth except unto the condemnation of the unbelievers. The idea that the BOM is ahistorical looks a lot more like unbelief than faith to me. (It is true that you will be rewarded for living ethical principles as far as that goes. And you can get those ethical principles from the Chicken Soup for the Soul series, and many other sources that have been written on telestial and.or terrestrial levels; check D&C 88:21-24 and then don't try to say that a telestial law is really the same thing as a celestial law because they both involve ethics.) 

I mentioned that there is a possibility of the records coming forth unto the condemnation of unbelievers. That has also been prophesied and is the time when they will be revealed in power from the rooftops (2 Ne. 27:11), a time that will be, for many,not a happy day:

2 For verily the voice of the Lord is unto all men, and there is none to escape; and there is no eye that shall not see, neither ear that shall not hear, neither heart that shall not be penetrated.

3 And the rebellious shall be pierced with much sorrow; for their iniquities shall be spoken upon the housetops, and their secret acts shall be revealed.(D&C 1)

The fact that I believe so strongly (some would say fanatically) in these things has often made me feel the outsider. In fact I seldom speak of these things because of the skepticism, unbelief or outright derision with which these ideas are met. I have now laid them out on this board, and I expect that there may or may not be varying responses. I don't know that I will be moved sufficiently by any of them to rehash my position, But I hope that you will at least have a fair idea of where I stand. If you have actually read this far, thank you for your patience.

[Tom N]

On 8/17/2017 at 3:45 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

Amen to Tom N.

Thanks Kevin. I have read quite a bit of your stuff over the years since we last saw each other. I appreciate the clarity and depth of your writing and the extensive research you put into it. I think your work with and about Margaret Barked has been invaluable. 

Keep up the good work.

[Kevin Christensen]

16 hours ago, Tom N said:

Thanks Kevin. I have read quite a bit of your stuff over the years since we last saw each other. I appreciate the clarity and depth of your writing and the extensive research you put into it. I think your work with and about Margaret Barked has been invaluable. 

Keep up the good work.

Thanks Tom.   I've often wished your essay on NDEs had been published.  I hope it is online somewhere.  I've mentioned several times over the years when the topic has come up.  And I'd love to see you contributing to the Interpreter.  It was fun see Zina review Mother of the Lord .  Margaret was impressed, dubbing it a masterpiece.

And yes, it has been amazing to be part of introducing Barker's work to the Saints.  I've met her again a few times since she came to BYU in 2003.  And being able to introduce her to you there was a highlight.   Shauna and I met her when she went to Yonkers, NY where she spoke to the Greek Orthodox there.  During the Q&A after her talk some of them wanted to know, "What is it about the Mormons?"  And she told them "If you are serious about the temple, you'll need to swallow your pride and ask the Mormons.  They have the best scholars on the topic, bar non."   Last Fall, Shauna and I managed our first trip to Europe since our Missions in the 70s, and in the midst of managing some of the essentials like Paris, a Harry Potter Studio tour, a Shakespeare play in Stratford, a Beatles tour, lots of Jane Austiny things, the little Cornwall town where Doc Martin is made, we managed to meet Margaret and her husband Hugh for Tea at their home in Derby.   I'm convinced though, that despite my book and essays, it all would have happened anyway.  Shortly after Paradigms Regained was published, Noel Reynolds decided to while away the time on a flight from the Vatican by reading The Great Angel.  He burst into the FARMS offices and asked if anyone had heard of Barker.  Midgley replied that they had just published Paradigms Regained.  So he contacted me, and I put him in contact with Barker, and so Provo 2003 happened. But he also told me that my writing the book had saved him the trouble.  So, it all was going to happen one way or another.  My favorite Book of Mormon prophesy is in 1 Nephi 13:39-42, on the restoration of plain and precious things, based on ancient texts to come forth from the gentiles after the publication of the Book of Mormon.  I think it points directly to her work.  Indeed, when she was at BYU, presenting the material that appears in her essay on "Text and Context", I saw Jack Welch loose his characteristic reserve, and leap towards her and pop open her newly monogrammed Triple Combination to First Nephi 13, and say, "Have you seen this!"  And of course, later, after I sent her a copy of my essay in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, she decided he had to read what all the fuss was about herself, and read the Book of Mormon, the D&C and the Pearl of Great Price in one day.  "Big job, she said and, "I was amazed at how much I recognized."

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/24/2017 at 1:56 PM, Tom N said:

I'm sorry that it takes me so long to react to what's going on on this board. To interact in such a forum is really quite foreign to my normal lifestyle. Ben, if you and your family were not such good friends I probably wouldn't bother to follow this discussion at all. But since I feel an overwhelming debt of gratitude to you all for literally saving me from the pit of despair I feel that I need to answer you in a way that will show you where I stand on the BOM and its historicity.

[snip]

Tom N, the length of your post was daunting to me, but I'm glad I made the effort to read it. It makes me yearn to have those additional records revealed, but only when I am in a position that they will be to my blessing, not condemnation. 

I believe we as a people have indeed taken the Book of Mormon too lightly, and this new trend of regarding it as inspired or pious fiction is probably the extreme example of that. President Benson emphasized what the book says about our being under condemnation because we have taken the book too lightly. I believe now the condemnation may well be the mistaken and restrictive notion that one can coast through life accepting only part of the book and ignoring much of  the important doctrine that is taught therein, thus selling oneself short on obtaining the greatest of all the gifts of God, which is eternal life. 

Thank you for your insights. 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Meerkat]

Insightful, Tom N.  I agree BOM is an historic record.  How do you reconcile your  references with Elder Oakes statement in the Oct 1995 Ensign, "Another idea that is powerful to lift us from discouragement is that the work of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “to bring to pass the … eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39), is an eternal work. Not all problems are overcome and not all needed relationships are fixed in mortality. The work of salvation goes on beyond the veil of death, and we should not be too apprehensive about incompleteness within the limits of mortality."  Or D&C 138:31-34?

Edited August 26, 2017 by Meerkat

[cdowis]

On 8/24/2017 at 3:56 PM, Tom N said:

If the BOM is ahistorical this prophecy could not possibly come to pass, because the people spoken of, the remnant of Jacob descended from Lehi, are only a fiction, an invention of Joseph Smith. The Lord continues His prophesying:

etc

I don't say this very often, but this is impressive.   You took this well beyond my pathetic attempt at analysis at how it affected the Joseph Smith narrative and the fictional, non-existent angel Moroni.  You showed how this "inspired but ahistorical book" narrative also collapses from within the text itself.  It makes promises it cannot keep.

I missed that.  I look forward to what you have to say in the future.

I have a few unfinished projects (topics) if you are interested.   For example, is it possible that matter itself has a form of intelligence.  It appears to have consciously obeyed the commands of the Creator, implying it has agency.  Perhaps there is a link here with the world of quantum mechanics -->> swarm intelligence.

And is there an alternative explanation to the evolutionary Tree of Life == how about chaos theory, to explain the links.

Years ago, I opened a topic suggesting some ideas in the "death before the Fall" , and looks like that has gotten alot of thought over the years.

Edited August 26, 2017 by cdowis

[Benjamin Seeker]

On 8/24/2017 at 1:56 PM, Tom N said:

You say "whether the book is historical or not will not change the effect of following its precepts." That is true if you only look at its moral and ethical teachings.

Please don't leave out my claim the BOM can help those who follow its teachings to experience revelation and commune with God! That was essentially the major claim I began this discussion with, which aspect I believe extends beyond its morals and ethics. I know that you'd be one of the first to acknowledge the importance of this aspect of the BOM.

 

Quote

But there are precepts that are based on and prophecy actual historical events. For example, in 3 Nephi 21 Christ prophesies, "

2 And behold, this is the thing which I will give unto you for a sign—for verily I say unto you that when these things which I declare unto you, and which I shall declare unto you hereafter of myself, and by the power of the Holy Ghost which shall be given unto you of the Father, shall be made known unto the Gentiles that they may know concerning this people who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, and concerning this my people who shall be scattered by them;

If the BOM is ahistorical this prophecy could not possibly come to pass, because the people spoken of, the remnant of Jacob descended from Lehi, are only a fiction, an invention of Joseph Smith. The Lord continues His prophesying:

22 But if they [the gentiles, meaning us] will repent and hearken unto my words, and harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them, and they shall come in unto the covenant and be numbered among this the remnant of Jacob [who don't actually exist if the BOM is ahistorical], unto whom I have given this land [would that be a fictional land? Or...?]for their inheritance;

23 And they shall assist my people, the remnant of Jacob, and also as many of the house of Israel as shall come, that they may build a city, which shall be called the New Jerusalem.

24 And then shall they assist my people that they may be gathered in, who are scattered upon all the face of the land, in unto the New Jerusalem.

25 And then shall the power of heaven come down among them; and I also will be in the midst. (3 Ne, 21, emphasis and commentary added)

So here we have a prediction of a future event that is based on the historicity of the BOM. If you don't care whether or not this will actually happen then an ahistorical view will work just fine. But if you do care, and I do indeed care, and care with a deep and fervent longing, then that care and the hope it engenders are very much dependant on the BOM being a real, historical and prophetic book.

I think an ahistorical approach to the BOM can still precipitate a powerful fulfillment of this prophecy. The end goal is building Zion, a united people living a celestial law where the power of God is plainly manifest present and integral to existence. When the remnant of Jacob, understood by 19th century Mormonism to be the native Americans, are reinterpreted as marginalized groups and peoples, then the restoration of marginalized groups to a unity with the unmarginalized (Gentiles) would go a long way to establishing Zion. This reinterpretation, while not the original intention of the text, is in the spirit of the original intention of the text and can be seen as a generalization of it. It also can be easily applied to D&C 49, which you quoted as well.

 

Quote

D&C 49 also prophesies of things that are historically dependant: 

24 But before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as the rose.

If the BOM is just inspired fiction you might as well prophecy that the Munchkins will blossom as the lily. After all, the Wizard of Oz has lots of good ethical and moral teachings we can learn from.

The Wizard of Oz isn't concerned with bringing man closer to God or establishing Zion. The BOM can be taken seriously even if I only view the prophecies about Lamanites as a 19th century interpretation of the Native Americans and as a vision for us to reach towards in relation to all marginalized groups. So while I wouldn't personally prophecy about the Munchkins blossoming, I would extend the Lord's promises to the Native Americans, indigenous marginalized groups across the world who are victims of colonization, women and children across the globe who are victims of sex slavery, the LGBT youth of Utah who take their lives at a higher rate than in many other places, and every other marginalized or at risk group. I would take Joseph's vision that gave a spiritually royal lineage to the Lamanites and parse it to all who need it. 

 

Quote

I could spend a lot of time discussing the variety of issues you raise, but I have decided to focus on the feeling of being an outsider. That is a place I've spent most of my life for a wide variety of reasons, many having to do with being a Mormon in a Non-Mormon world. But within Mormonism there are also outsider views such as yours on one end of a spectrum, and mine (which I am about to define) on the other. In the middle there is the average, normal acceptance that the BOM is a good book, a true record and has some value and we should read it regularly. In my estimation that position takes the BOM far too lightly.

 

It's good to have company either way.  

 

Quote

I base my thinking and feeling about the BOM on the book itself and D&C 84, which is where I'll start:

54 And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—

55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.

56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.

57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

58 That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion. (D&C 84)

Now freaky words and phrases like 'condemnation' and 'scourge and judgment to be poured out' are really only scary if you take them seriously like I do. But if the BOM is only fiction and JS got his inspiration from just thinking deeply enough to be touched by some divine essence then, pooh, ain't nothing to make no nevermind about. Be nice and we all gets to go down the glory road. More on that in a bit.

So, okay, I take section 84 seriously, what do I do about it? I check that word 'condemnation' in the BOM and find a couple of very interesting passages that tell me. First in 3 Nephi 26:

9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.

10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation. (3 Nephi 26)

There you have it. Want to escape from condemnation? Just believe the things that have been given to try our faith, then greater things will be given and that will inform us that we are no longer under condemnation. The question arises, is it enough to say that we have faith in the very book we are reading as an ahistorical, inspired fiction? Are we going to get the greater things promised if we believe the promise was only fictive? I don't think there's much to be expected if what is written in 3 Nephi is only Joseph's fevered imagination talking. But I believe that what we have here are actual words of Jesus Christ, the risen Lord as He spoke to real people at a real place it a real time.

Again, a historical reading of this passage isn't the only meaningful one nor does an ahistorical reading diminish the message. If you find revelation meaningful, and both you and I do, the promise of further revelation is a significant one no matter what form those "greater things" take. An ahistorical interpretation simply takes a non-literal approach to that form.

 

Quote

We're even told what the promised greater things are about:

1 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had told these things he expounded them unto the multitude; and he did expound all things unto them, both great and small.

2 And he saith: These scriptures, which ye had not with you, the Father commanded that I should give unto you; for it was wisdom in him that they should be given unto future generations.

3 And he did expound all things, even from the beginning until the time that he should come in his glory—yea, even all things which should come upon the face of the earth, even until the elements should melt with fervent heat, and the earth should be wrapt together as a scroll, and the heavens and the earth should pass away;

4 And even unto the great and last day, when all people, and all kindreds, and all nations and tongues shall standbefore God, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

5 If they be good, to the resurrection of everlasting life; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of damnation; being on a parallel, the one on the one hand and the other on the other hand, according to the mercy, and the justice, and the holiness which is in Christ, who was before the world began.

6 And now there cannot be written in this book even a hundredth part of the things which Jesus did truly teach unto the people;

7 But behold the plates of Nephi do contain the more part of the things which he taught the people.

8 And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken.

Moroni gives the other passage I referred to above. It's in Ether 4, and Moroni comes off as being even more intense than his father was in 3 Nephi. Here's what he has to say:

8 And he that will contend against the word of the Lord, let him be accursed; and he that shall deny these things, let him be accursed; for unto them will I show no greater things, saith Jesus Christ; for I am he who speaketh. (Ether 4)

I went to that verse first because I think that word 'accursed' is kind of an attention-getter. Like 'condemnation' and 'scourge'. I personally would like to avoid being the recipient of those things. And how is that done?

11 But he that believeth these things which I have spoken, him will I visit with the manifestations of my Spirit, and he shall know and bear record. For because of my Spirit he shall know that these things are true; for it persuadeth men to do good.

12 And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leadeth men to all good; he that will not believemy words will not believe me—that I am; and he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For behold, I am the Father, I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.

13 Come unto me, O ye Gentiles, and I will show unto you the greater things, the knowledge which is hid up because of unbelief. [These greater things are what Moroni says he sealed up to come forth later. That would be in BOMII, the Sequel, which JS will be inspired to write as a follow-up, or will never appear if the BOM is fiction, inspired or otherwise. But I firmly believe that BOM is not fiction and the time will come when these things will come forth.]

Again, an ahistorical approach can value the "greater things" whether their form be literal or not. 

 

Quote

14 Come unto me, O ye house of Israel, and it shall be made manifest unto you how great things the Father hath laid up for you, from the foundation of the world; and it hath not come unto you, because of unbelief.

15 Behold, when ye shall rend that veil of unbelief which doth cause you to remain in your awful state of wickedness, and hardness of heart, and blindness of mind, then shall the great and marvelous things which have been hid up from the foundation of the world from you... be unfolded in the eyes of all the people. [Ether 4, commentary added]

There are great blessings available to those who will "rend that veil of unbelief". To not rend the veil is to remain in an "awful state of wickedness, and hardness of heart, and blindness of mind." That state is most frightening when you realize that it is self imposed. We all self identify who we are and where we stand. If we want to say we see because we are offended by the thought that we may be blind when we still refuse to turn on the light of the Spirit then we will still remain in the dark. However most of the time when people blind themselves they're not frightened at all because they are truly blind to the danger they are in.  

One of my points in starting the thread and in responding here is that a deep and meaningful belief in God, revelation, and the prophecies and visions of Zion can be held by someone who believes the BOM is ahistorical. I agree that traditionally someone who didn't take the Book literally would be considered within the viel of unbelief, but I'm suggesting that belief and faith can flourish with or without BOM Historicity.

To sum it up, I sincerely believe we can build Zion and work towards celestial realities whether the BOM be historical or ahistorical. I believe we can recieve further visions, revelations, the sealed portion, etc. with either historical or ahistorical foundations. 

Edited August 27, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Gray]

On 8/23/2017 at 1:13 PM, hagoth7 said:

I believe it's about both.

It's also a history of God keeping his promises.  Which in and of itself is extremely faith-promoting.

I believe that when you claim such kept promises were ahistorical, you've sifted out important/crucial truths about how God interacts with mankind.

That's presentism, though. Writers of scriptures were passing on stories, not using the historical method.  

[RevTestament]

On 8/24/2017 at 1:56 PM, Tom N said:

The fact that I believe so strongly (some would say fanatically) in these things has often made me feel the outsider. In fact I seldom speak of these things because of the skepticism, unbelief or outright derision with which these ideas are met. I have now laid them out on this board, and I expect that there may or may not be varying responses. I don't know that I will be moved sufficiently by any of them to rehash my position, But I hope that you will at least have a fair idea of where I stand. If you have actually read this far, thank you for your patience.

I wish I could pos rep you Tom. I just want to say, you are not alone in your feelings. Although at one time my feelings about the BoM weren't strong, they now are. Anyway, you make several very good points about its historicity. 

I am sorry you feel like an outsider, but no matter what I do, I end up being an outsider in my life, so just know that you are not alone. I just wanted to thank you for speaking up. I grew up in a decidedly non-LDS area going to a non-LDS school, so I hear you loud and clear bro. No worries. Keep your chin up. Your faith will be rewarded. 

[Meerkat]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

That's presentism, though. Writers of scriptures were passing on stories, not using the historical method.  

When you say they were passing on stories, are you talking about an allegory with a good moral?  Or passing on an actual oral history of what happened?  

Calling it an ahistorical work discounts the actual history we know of.  It ignores the sworn, signed testimony of multiple witnesses.  And it ignores the testimony of millions who state that they know the Book of Mormon is true because God has revealed it to them.

Calling the Book of Mormon ahistorical removes the foundation of truth it is based on. By dedefinition, ahistorical means untrue.  I do not agree that an ahistorical Book of Mormon could ever be considered scripture.  

The issue I have with an ahistorical BOM is that Mormon and Moroni witnessed the last battle, an historical event.  Moroni buried the plates and showed Joseph Smith where they were, two other historical events.  In the Book of Omni, the Book passed through five generations.  Each of them was a witness of the record.  Then you have the three witnessed who signed their hand to this fantastic testimony: "And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true."  That is an historical event with live, respected witnesses from the community.

Then you have eight additional witnesses who state: "...as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken."

An ahistorical BOM would be little different than "Pilgrims Progress," a much beloved  inspirational fiction, but could not be considered scripture.

I accept the Book of Mormon as true and scripture.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Meerkat

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

When you say they were passing on stories, are you talking about an allegory with a good moral?  Or passing on an actual oral history of what happened?  

I don't think they worried about the distinction like we do. And they certainly didn't have the ability to check out sources the stories to see if they had any historical accuracy to them before writing them down.

 

Quote

Calling it an ahistorical work discounts the actual history we know of.  It ignores the sworn, signed testimony of multiple witnesses.  And it ignores the testimony of millions who state that they know the Book of Mormon is true because God has revealed it to them.

Calling the Book of Mormon ahistorical removes the foundation of truth it is based on. By dedefinition, ahistorical means untrue.  I do not agree that an ahistorical Book of Mormon could ever be considered scripture.  

I guess I was really thinking of the Bible, sorry for any confusion. The Bible is ancient, but not historically accurate. Even if the BOM were ancient (I don't believe it is) there is little chance it would be historically accurate. So I guess that's something to unpack too - ancient vs historically accurate.

 

 

Quote

The issue I have with an ahistorical BOM is that Mormon and Moroni witnessed the last battle, an historical event.  Moroni buried the plates and showed Joseph Smith where they were, two other historical events.  In the Book of Omni, the Book passed through five generations.  Each of them was a witness of the record.  Then you have the three witnessed who signed their hand to this fantastic testimony: "And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true."  That is an historical event with live, respected witnesses from the community.

Then you have eight additional witnesses who state: "...as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken."

An ahistorical BOM would be little different than "Pilgrims Progress," a much beloved  inspirational fiction.  

The Bible is largely ahistorical too. But its spiritual value remains immeasurable. Why should the BOM be any different?

If Jesus, Satan and Paul Harvey each privately tell you to love your neighbor as yourself, which of the three is right?

Edited August 28, 2017 by Gray

[hagoth7]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

That's presentism, though...

I respectfully disagree.

[Meerkat]

 

4 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't think they worried about the distinction like we do. And they certainly didn't have the ability to check out sources the stories to see if they had any historical accuracy to them before writing them down.

So you are saying they are passing on an oral history that may lose geographical accuracy over time.  That seems reasonable and even likely to me.

I guess I was really thinking of the Bible, sorry for any confusion. The Bible is ancient, but not historically accurate. Even if the BOM were ancient (I don't believe it is) there is little chance it would be historically accurate. So I guess that's something to unpack too - ancient vs historically accurate.

I see a difference between ahistorical, with no regard to historical context, and an oral history.

The Bible is largely ahistorical too. But its spiritual value remains immeasurable. Why should the BOM be any different?

If based on the ahistorical versus oral history definition above, I agree with you.

If Jesus, Satan and Paul Harvey each privately tell you to love your neighbor as yourself, which of the three is right?

Jesus and Paul Harvey, who was a dedicated follower of Jesus Christ.  Satan is a liar, so didn't mean it. 😜

 

[Gray]

10 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

I respectfully disagree.

You think ancient writers of scripture were versed in the historical method?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

That would be quite anachronistic.

[Gray]

8 hours ago, Meerkat said:

 

So you are saying they are passing on an oral history that may lose geographical accuracy over time.  That seems reasonable and even likely to me.

 

 see a difference between ahistorical, with no regard to historical context, and an oral history.

 

If based on the ahistorical versus oral history definition above, I agree with you.

 

Jesus and Paul Harvey, who was a dedicated follower of Jesus Christ.  Satan is a liar, so didn't mean it. 😜

 

Some of it's oral histories, some of it's just stories, like Adam and Eve. There's no history to the story, but it's rich with symbolic meaning.

The gospels for instance contain kernels of the historical Jesus. But it is by no means a history of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

I know you're joking, but if Satan says to love your neighbor, should you not do it because Satan said it?

Edited August 28, 2017 by Gray

[Meerkat]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

I know you're joking, but if Satan says to love your neighbor, should you not do it because Satan said it?

I would do it because its the right thing to do regardless of who said it.