How an Ahistorical Book of Mormon Can Still Be Scripture

[cdowis]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

I sympathize. But my perspective is that I think meaning is the interpretation of the story, whether historical or not. The deep-down spiritual meaning doesn't change if the story isn't "factual". But for me the deep down spiritual message is never about gifts that we think God is going to give us in the hereafter. The meaning for me is transformative principles that make life worthwhile.

 

 

The text of the  Book of Mormon is a relative small part of our religious experience.  The issue of how it came into being is more vital to our religious experience than what it contains.  The house itself is more important than the furnishings.

A non-existent, fake angel with a fictional existence makes the temple experience and covenants empty and devoid of the power of the priesthood.  Just another meaningless, empty ritual among the other religions.

Obviously we see things very differently.

Edited August 28, 2017 by cdowis

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, cdowis said:

The text of the  Book of Mormon is a relative small part of our religious experience.  The issue of how it came into being is more vital to our religious experience than what it contains.  The house itself is more important than the furnishings.

A non-existent, fake angel with a fictional existence makes the temple experience and covenants empty and devoid of the power of the priesthood.  Just another meaningless, empty ritual among the other religions.

Obviously we see things very differently.

What's preferable, an imaginary angel whose message is "repent and be humble" or a real angel whose message is "eat, drink and be merry"? The message is what's important, not the messenger.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  How are these differentiated?

The nativity stories are non-overlapping - all the details between Matthew and Luke are different, other than the names of the people involved. Matthew and Luke's sources sources are Mark and possibly in Q. Q is the sayings of Jesus, and Mark doesn't talk about Jesus' birth. So they're likely both invented stories, created to advance the idea that Jesus was adopted as God's son beginning at his birth, rather than at his baptism, as Mark claimed.

Regarding divorce, what I understand is that that Christian writers try to soften Jesus' teachings about divorce as you go chronologically through the NT - indicating they were uncomfortable with those teachings. Why invent them at all then? That indicates there is a historical core of Jesus preaching against divorce. The criterion of embarrassment is one of many historical criteria used to evaluate these things. Jesus being a follower of John the Baptist is thought to be authentic for the same reason - it's embarrassing, and Christian writers try to explain it away by making John say that he's unworthy of Jesus.

 

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So ancient scripture can describe actual historical events and people (with varying degrees of accuracy), and therefore be "historical," but not "history"?

I appreciate your insights.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, but I would put it this way. There is a historical core to many ancient scriptures. But, many of the details are not historical. Some of the stories are completely invented. The end goal of the writers is not to describe historical fact vs historical non fact, but a historical core is often present. No one is actually trying to preserve history, and they wouldn't know how to do so if they wanted to. They're trying to write about what it all means to them. The history is incidental.

[Gray]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What about Joseph Smith-History?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think that would come the closest, but it's more like autobiography than history, right?

[Gray]

53 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Your personal knowledge of such things is obviously deep and profound.  "I don't know it, so it did not happen" is an interesting point of view.

We need to remember that when we read your posts.

PS I was not talking about "any book of scripture" but specifically the Book of Mormon.

I'm trying to communicate my understanding of the scholarship, as a layperson, to the best of my ability.

There are several things about the BOM, that, IMO, would automatically disqualify it as an ancient document based on critical Biblical scholarship - at least that's my viewpoint. But even if it were ancient, it would be very unlikely to be an accurate history. Kind of a catch 22.

[clarkgoble]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

What's preferable, an imaginary angel whose message is "repent and be humble" or a real angel whose message is "eat, drink and be merry"? The message is what's important, not the messenger.

That conclusion doesn't follow from your example since only certain types of messages can be conveyed by an imaginary angel. Again speech act theory and the illocutionary force that I've discussed here explains why. Imaginary beings can't promise, declare or do many other things. Imaginary beings can't do things that require authority. So if you say the message is what's important then historicity questions determine what messages can be conveyed. A significant number of messages Mormons see as crucial are dismissed. 

Saying it's the message and not the messenger that's important is thus rather disingenuous unless one acknowledges that the message is severely transformed.

Edited August 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hagoth7]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

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

No.

But many peoples knew how to convey a truthful message to the next generation without needing to be *versed* in modern academic schools of thought.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That conclusion doesn't follow from your example since only certain types of messages can be conveyed by an imaginary angel. Again speech act theory and the illocutionary force that I've discussed here explains why. Imaginary beings can't promise, declare or do many other things. So if you say the message is what's important then historicity questions determine what messages can be conveyed.

The message is always conveyed through human agents, so the divine being is always quite beside the point. The message exists whether or not there was an angel

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

No.

But many peoples knew how to convey a truthful message to the next generation without needing to be *versed* in modern academic schools of thought.

Oral histories can't be transmitted accurately, regardless of good intentions. You can't get an accurate history without accurate sources.

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

The message is always conveyed through human agents, so the divine being is always quite beside the point. The message exists whether or not there was an angel

That's not at all true though. Consider the priesthood. If there were no angels giving the priesthood then Joseph Smith didn't get the priesthood and more importantly questions of authority become ungrounded and wrong. In the same way that an actor marrying two other actors on stage during a performance doesn't imply the actors are suddenly really married. There are numerous examples like this that I mentioned in that comment from a week or two ago.

There's also the question of justification. I think for most Mormons were Joseph not to have translated real plates, did not meet actual angels, that the grounds for believing change substantially. 

[hagoth7]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

...There are several things about the BOM, that, IMO, would automatically disqualify it as an ancient document based on critical Biblical scholarship...

Can you name a few such things?

...even if it were ancient, it would be very unlikely to be an accurate history.

? Based on what?

[Meerkat]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

"As accurate as humanly possible" actually isn't very accurate at all, for the time. People were passing on stories that they had no way of knowing ever happened. There was no way to evaluate them. And it's unlikely they held our modern dichotomous views about parable vs fact.

You may be right on that.  They may have just believed the people who told them.  As humans, we do the best we can, and I'm okay with that. Jesus was historical.  I know because He transformed by life and I am a different person than I once was.  Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith and the three witnesses.  So I know he was an historical figure.  I believe the last battle was historic as was Mormon because the same Spirit that changed my life testifies to me that the Book of Mormon is true to my satisfaction.  

It seems as if you are satisfied to embrace good principles from a fictional source.  I am also.  Good literature, Les Mis, Pilgrims Progress, good books of all sorts.  And that is your right.  I don't participate in this discussion to diminish your joy because of your views.  There is a difference between fiction and sacred scriptures.  When it comes to Salvation, proper ordinances and authority are essential to me.  A fiction will not do.  God has answered my prayers clearly and to my satisfaction.  In doing that, he left room for faith.  He could have made us a DVD of Moroni and the three witnesses, the eight witnesses and Joseph Smith's first vision.  But he didn't. He gave us witnesses, the Scriptures and the Holy Ghost instead.  Its better than a DVD for me.  I'm glad you like the principles taught in the scriptures, and am glad your approach is working for you.

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, Gray said:

What's preferable, an imaginary angel whose message is "repent and be humble" or a real angel whose message is "eat, drink and be merry"? The message is what's important, not the messenger.

But that is not what the choice is...the choice is the message of repent and be humble with either an imaginary or real angel.

The message is important, but messages are often of different authority based onthe authority of who says them.  Me telling my daughter she didn't have additional issues of ADD was dismissed by her while a psychologist saying it was accepted.

An imaginary angel does not suggest that there may be eternal significance to the message while a real angel sent from God does.

[Meerkat]

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

They're trying to write about what it all means to them. The history is incidental.

I agree that the history is incidental (isnt important to the lesson,) for the most part. That doesn't mean it is fictional.

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

But that is not what the choice is...the choice is the message of repent and be humble with either an imaginary or real angel.

The message is important, but messages are often of different authority based onthe authority of who says them.  Me telling my daughter she didn't have additional issues of ADD was dismissed by her while a psychologist saying it was accepted.

An imaginary angel does not suggest that there may be eternal significance to the message while a real angel sent from God does.

Authority doesn't make a message true, though, does it? It might satisfy our security needs, but truth is truth, regardless of the source.

Part of the issue here is a disagreement about the purpose of spirituality. Is the spiritual message about promising people divine rewards and consequences in the eternities? To me, it's just not about that at all. Maybe that's why I find it easier to disregard appeals to authority.

 

Rabbi Ted Falcon:

Quote

Reward and punishment, as motivations for proper thought and action, are ego functions, reflections of the way we teach our children before they are ready to better understand and to make their own choices and decisions.

 

If there were a God who could respond to human actions in this way, that God would have stopped the Shoah, the Holocaust, long before six million of us were murdered. That God would prevent natural disasters that claim thousands of innocents across the planet.

In some ways, we might wish such a system of clear rewards and punishments operated in our world, but that would render us always children, never growing to take responsibility for our own life choices. The process of evolution would be eclipsed by the need to adhere to unchanging rules and regulations.

 

[Gray]

24 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's not at all true though. Consider the priesthood. If there were no angels giving the priesthood then Joseph Smith didn't get the priesthood and more importantly questions of authority become ungrounded and wrong. In the same way that an actor marrying two other actors on stage during a performance doesn't imply the actors are suddenly really married. There are numerous examples like this that I mentioned in that comment from a week or two ago.

There's also the question of justification. I think for most Mormons were Joseph not to have translated real plates, did not meet actual angels, that the grounds for believing change substantially. 

That's one interpretation. Authority is of course a human construct - is it a divine construct? I don't think so. But it doesn't follow that Joseph Smith could only have authority if someone really came from beyond the grave to give it to him. He could have been gifted with it in any number of ways. Or it could all just be a metaphor, a way of saying, "listen to what I'm saying - this message is important!"

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Authority doesn't make a message true, though, does it? It might satisfy our security needs, but truth is truth, regardless of the source.

Certainly it can. If a police officer gives you a ticket it's true in a sense that someone pretending to be a police officer can't offer even if they do exactly the same things. And, if you try to tell the court the officer's ticket was only a metaphor I think you'll be in for a surprise.

Edited August 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

That's one interpretation. Authority is of course a human construct - is it a divine construct? I don't think so. But it doesn't follow that Joseph Smith could only have authority if someone really came from beyond the grave to give it to him. He could have been gifted with it in any number of ways. Or it could all just be a metaphor, a way of saying, "listen to what I'm saying - this message is important!"

He certainly could have been gifted it in other ways, except that he doesn't claim authority in those ways nor is there any reason to think he had authority in those ways. Thus in terms of his message, the authority matters. Especially since one of his major claims is that authority can only be given in those ways.

I'm not sure what you mean by authority being a human construct. Authority works because there's a recognition by the concerned people. Police have authority because the courts accept that they have authority. If that's what you mean then I agree. However that doesn't mean anything goes. Quite the contrary. It means the speakers with authority matter. That there is a social norm behind it seems true. But that simply means figure out what the norms are matters.

Edited August 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Can you name a few such things?

• Jesus delivers the Sermon on the Mount (or a version of it) 50 years before it was put together by Matthew. While the Sermon likely contains authentic teachings of Jesus, it almost certainly was never delivered by Jesus in that format.
• It is said that Jesus will sweat great drops of blood in Mosiah 3 (~124 BCE) - an allusion to a late addition to the Luke manuscript, more than two centuries later
• Atonement theology took many decades to develop in the first century of the Christian movement, and continued to develop beyond that time. But it appears more or less fully developed among the Nephites many centuries before even the birth of Jesus.
• The early Christian use of the term Savior and Son of God to describe Jesus is a clear rejection of Roman authority. These were the terms the Romans used to describe Cesar - the Christians deliberately used them to say, no, not Cesar, but Jesus. But somehow the Nephites use these terms centuries earlier and another continent, completely divorced from the historical context that brought them about.

 

 

25 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

? Based on what?

If it's authentic ancient scripture, then it's not accurate history. We can look to the Bible to see what to expect from authentically ancient Hebrew scripture.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Certainly it can. If a police officer gives you a ticket it's true in a sense that someone pretending to be a police officer can't offer even if they do exactly the same things. And, if you try to tell the court the officer's ticket was only a metaphor I think you'll be in for a surprise.

The ticket means you violated some traffic law. Either you did or you didn't. The officer's authority doesn't change it. You're talking about consequences, I'm talking about meaning.

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

He certainly could have been gifted it in other ways, except that he doesn't claim authority in those ways nor is there any reason to think he had authority in those ways. Thus in terms of his message, the authority matters. Especially since one of his major claims is that authority can only be given in those ways.

I'm not sure what you mean by authority being a human construct. Authority works because there's a recognition by the concerned people. Police have authority because the courts accept that they have authority. If that's what you mean then I agree. However that doesn't mean anything goes. Quite the contrary. It means the speakers with authority matter. That there is a social norm behind it seems true. But that simply means figure out what the norms are matters.

We only have to look to the worst regimes in human history to see the fallacy of an appeal to authority. Authority doesn't make the message true or good. It just means someone is going to try to enforce it.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Gray

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

• Jesus delivers the Sermon on the Mount (or a version of it) 50 years before it was put together by Matthew. While the Sermon likely contains authentic teachings of Jesus, it almost certainly was never delivered by Jesus in that format.
• It is said that Jesus will sweat great drops of blood in Mosiah 3 (~124 BCE) - an allusion to a late addition to the Luke manuscript, more than two centuries later
• Atonement theology took many decades to develop in the first century of the Christian movement, and continued to develop beyond that time. But it appears more or less fully developed among the Nephites many centuries before even the birth of Jesus.
• The early Christian use of the term Savior and Son of God to describe Jesus is a clear rejection of Roman authority. These were the terms the Romans used to describe Cesar - the Christians deliberately used them to say, no, not Cesar, but Jesus. But somehow the Nephites use these terms centuries earlier and another continent, completely divorced from the historical context that brought them about.

So, if something is believed/taught prior to your preferred timeline for such teachings...*they* are the ones in error?

Um...ever thought that *your* thinking might be the facet needing a wee bit of upgrading?

If it's authentic ancient scripture, then it's not accurate history.

As a historian, and as one who loves the scriptures, on your last assertion, we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

[hagoth7]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Oral histories can't be transmitted accurately, regardless of good intentions. You can't get an accurate history without accurate sources.

Wow. Is that assertion ever 180-degrees wrong.

I've read many heavily-footnoted histories that get things dreadfully wrong.

 

Methinks you think much too highly of modern written tradition, and not enough of surprisingly-accurate oral traditions.

[deli_llama]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

Oral histories can't be transmitted accurately, regardless of good intentions. You can't get an accurate history without accurate sources.

That simply isn't factual. People in modern and/or western societies might not be well equipped to transmit an oral history accurately, but there are still many groups of people through the world, generally among indigenous populations, who absolutely can recount oral histories with an astonishing degree of accuracy. Some of these histories, geneologies and epics might take several days to recount because of their lengths.

eta-I need to hit refresh more often, especially when it takes me hours to actually it submit. So, yeah, what this say:

"Methinks you think much too highly of modern written tradition, and not enough of surprisingly-accurate oral traditions."

Edited August 29, 2017 by deli_llama
Because I can.

[deli_llama]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

"As accurate as humanly possible" actually isn't very accurate at all, for the time. People were passing on stories that they had no way of knowing ever happened. There was no way to evaluate them. And it's unlikely they held our modern dichotomous views about parable vs fact.

True, it is unlikely that they had our modern western dichotomies, and that is a good thing. What is not true is them not understanding the difference between parable, or what ever other variants of stories they employed within their cultures/societies, and fact. Of course I can't speak for every primitive culture, but for those currently existing primitive cultures I am well versed in, and for just about every primitive culture I have just passing knowledge of, they have words, terms, and concepts that clearly define what type of story is being expressed.