How an Ahistorical Book of Mormon Can Still Be Scripture

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I opened this thread as a way of continuing a discussion began in a previous thread, so I invite the debate and discussion to kindly and temperately ensue.

I think the same rationale and attitude involved in determining the spiritual value of the Gospel message as carried in a book deemed to be ahistorical applies to determining the spiritual value of the same message as carried by fallible Church prophets, past and present. I think that would encourage treating the Book of Mormon as historical, or at least as though it were historical, even if one does not believe that it is.

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

But according to Joseph's mother, at least, he was channeling stories of the native Americans from an early age.

My understanding is that happened postMoroni visitations which Joseph described as teaching experiences.  If so, Moroni could have been showing him visions of his people and history.

Edited August 8, 2017 by Calm

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

My understanding is that happened postMoroni visitations which Joseph described as teaching experiences.  If so, Moroni could have been showing him visions of his people and history.

It looks like you're right:

 

Quote

Now said he[,] Father and Mother the angel of the Lord says that we must be careful not to proclaim these things or to mention them abroad For we do not any of us know the wickedness of the world which is so sinful that when we get the plates they will want to kill us for the sake of the gold if they know we had <have> them...by sunset [we] were ready to be seated and give our atten undivided attention to Josephs recitals...From this time forth Joseph continued to receive instructions from time to time and every evening we gathered our children togather [together]...In the course of our evening conversations Joseph would give us some of the most ammusing [amusing] recitals which could be immagined [imagined]. he would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent their dress their man[n]er of traveling the animals which they rode The cities that were built by them the structure of their buildings with every particular of their mode of warfare their religious worship as particularly as though he had spent his life with them...The angel informed him at one time that he might make an effort to obtain the plates <on> the <22nd of the> ensueing september...

 

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/"Amusing_recitals"_of_ancient_American_inhabitants

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

You are welcome, though it's not just interest in Book of Mormon studies, but production and insight into the text, as well as accounting for evidence.  One of the reasons that I don't find Palmer's conclusion persuasive that Joseph Smith fabricated the Priesthood restoration accounts in response to the Howe's 1834 book is that I have read the first paragraph of Joseph Smith's 1832 history, wherein he mentions priesthood restoration.  And 1830 newspaper accounts that imply it.  So it's not just subjectivity, not just all personal preference.  Accounting for the data at hand also matters. So if data and evidence, and accounting for it matters, it doesn't have to be just subjectivity.  It is true that subjectivity is inescapable, as are selectivity, temporality and the effects of contextualization.  But there are ways to assess our various positions in ways that deliberately put them at risk in terms of considerations that are not totally subjective and personal.  And that is why I frequently cite Kuhn on the criteria for paradigm choice that are not totally paradigm dependent.  And he points to puzzle definition and solution, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise. 

Just how testable, how accurate, how comprehensive and coherent, how fruitful, how aesthetically elegant, and how promising is a hypothesis that it is sufficient to define the Book of Mormon as "large" and "complex"  and with some distinctive language (chiasmus) which she implies, comes from Smith's immersion in the KJV?  And highly hypnotizable individuals of course, as though participants in Vegas shows insist ever after to all and sundry that yes they really did turn into chickens on that stage.

Taves did not only avoid the "weeds of apologetic defenses" of the Book of Mormon (consider the rhetorical implications of the metaphor: such things really do matter), she avoids the weeds of the actual content.  Anyone who thinks that the book really does deal with the content has not read the book.  "Large" and "complex" with some chiasmus really is the depth of her exploration.  Does this matter?

John 10:38

But if I do [the works of my Father, works none other man did] though ye believe not me, believe the works, that ye may know and believe.

Luke 24 11

And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.

It happens that my working title for my review of Revelatory Events is "Playing to an Audience"  She says up front that she is writing for a secular audience, and I think she can safely assume that her audience won't care about her neglect of the Book of Mormon content and scholarship.  For that audience, "large and complex" will do.  For a secular audience that presumes that the Book of Mormon is nothing more than an idle tale, she does not need to bother.  But not me.  And it's not just personal preference, not just subjective preference. But puzzle definition and solution, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise.   I can point to a wide array of puzzles and solutions that the Book of Mormon defines, its accuracy of key predictions, a wide range of studies and evidences that fit together, the unexpected discoveries that I and others have made that a person who does not bother to read it will never see.  And there is the difference between the promise of a secular future, and the fruit of the tree of life.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Kevin,

I hesitate to be too critical because I'm looking forward to reading your entire review of Taves book, but the preview you're giving me here sounds like you are completely missing the point of her book.  She was not attempting to critique any of the truth claims of the three spiritual movements.  If she had explored the chiasmus argument in any layer of complexity for example, she would have been running contrary to the central theme of her book which was to look at the development of religious movements and how group dynamics played a role in the revelatory process.  Instead she focused on the earliest revelatory events, i.e. the first vision narrative, and the first written revelations, and compared the evolution of those documents and narratives to the first events in these other movements, and how group dynamics influenced the way that these events unfolded.  It was fascinating, and it honestly changed my operating paradigm for how I think Mormonism developed.  I would recommend you listen to this podcast series with the author that Dan Witherspoon recently recorded with the Neuroscientist Michael Ferguson and Ann Taves, it was helpful to hear her talk about the book and explore the themes for my understanding of the book as well.  

http://www.mormonmatters.org/2017/07/25/403-406-revelations-of-joseph-smith-and-others-a-naturalistic-hypothesis/

Aren't you ultimately doing the same thing that you accuse Ann of doing in that you are playing to an audience with your critique.  Mormon studies in a narrow sense, the more apologetic approaches that find chiasmus interesting, or that want to dig into ancient origins of the BoM research, these are legitimate fields of exploration, but have an audience that is different than the wider secular audience that follows Mormonism.  

Also as far as Palmer or the other authors you mention, do their works have flaws and limitations and audiences that prefer that kind of approach with its pros and cons, yes to all of the above.  But does that invalidate any of their arguments.  Lets say you can prove Palmer was wrong about xyz point on the restoration of the priesthood, he ignored evidence you find compelling that goes against his thesis and weakens his argument.  What does that mean?  Doesn't the traditional LDS narrative have a gazillion similar dominant narratives that are similarly weakly supported that thousands of people believe are strong arguments that they put faith in these arguments as gospel truths, and they are really weak arguments that the best facts about history really run contrary to?  Does that make their faith in these weak arguments any less valid?  Same thing for the exmormon that relied on Palmer's interpretations.

Doesn't it go equally both ways?  People are putting faith in a particular narrative about history, this faith is largely independent of facts about the matter.  Is faith against the church's weak arguments any less legitimate than faith in those same weak arguments.  What is relevant when it comes to subjective faith about religious claims?  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

"Faith" is what animates us, give us direction and the ability to leap beyond what "seems" logical. It is what frees us from to step into the unknown or the unseen, believing that there is solid ground beneath us. Be if in the heart, or in the mind, the results are the same, the reward is still the same. The reward is that even even as the "grain of the mustard seed" it can move Mountians, and I mean the Mountians that stand in our way, and that block us from knowing, seeing and hearing, His will, form, and the voice of God. It is the "walking around" or "climbing over" or even "moving" these Mountians where we find the "burning bush" and find the truth of God. This of course assuming that we truly want too. Many fear seeking him too much and seeking faith too much, might reveal a God who asks too much, more than we are willing too give. The fear that once we see, once we hear, once we feel, then we might be unwilling to change, thereby reaping his judgement. This is not "faith or belief 101", you have to want it bad. The simple truth is that simple faith, leads to greater faith, which leads to action (as "faith" is an action word) which leads to knowing, which leads to harsh judgement for those "who look back", no longer worthy of the "Kingdom of God". Or as the scripture puts it, is like a "dog turning to his own vomit". So seeking "faith in God", to know without doubt is not for the faint of heart. But without fail, worth every "sacrifice", or what the world sees as "sacrifice".  

Thanks Papa, I think I've traveled way to far outside the basic religious paradigm to find these words compelling.  I question the existence of God and why any entity would want us to have faith in that entity in the first place.  I tend to think that God is an experience our brains have evolved to have, and I'm trying to re-approach God from that basic paradigm, but do so in a way that feels like it contains integrity.  I'm still searching, still don't see the point in having faith in a doctrine or faith in a being.  I can see having faith in goodness and ethical principles.  Maybe thats my starting block.  

I just hear a lot of religious people claiming that faith is whenever you don't understand why God commanded something, you just need to ignore your doubts about it and push forward anyway, and that doesn't seem compatible with my current paradigm.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The non-scholar will likely have no idea what the consensus is or has been, thus having no sense of perspective.  He may have read one or two popular books by scholars, and maybe a few popular articles -- thus having no true conception of the full range of scholarship in any particular area, and certainly no notion of consensus, not to mention the inability to access specialized sources or original texts.  As usual, a little bit of knowledge proves dangerous, just as it does for the Sorcerer's Apprentice.  This applies as much to those who blindly follow authority figures in science as in religion.

But why is this dangerous?  Isn't this the way that 99.9% of humans have operated in the world since the beginning of time.  With very limited knowledge making decisions based on instinct, and intuition that is extremely limited, unaware of the "full range of scholarship" on any issues.  Even our leaders are largely unaware of the full range of scholarship on so many topics.  If this is dangerous, then virtually every human on the planet lives life quite dangerously. 

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One may make life decisions with or without the help of the Holy Spirit.  However, one is bound to the infinite regress of secular decisions made within the prison of one's senses and logic alone (the vicious circle as seen by David Hume).  The Holy Spirit merely offers one way to escape from that vicious cycle, and which requires faith -- which implies self-delusion to many

Your assumption being that the Holy Spirit is an source of objective truths about external reality, and my assumption is that the Holy Spirit represents a subjective feeling within our mind that helps us feel comfort and aligns the thinking of our various different senses and experiences from our body and mind, and this gives a person personal peace about the decision making process.  

[Robert F. Smith]

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But why is this dangerous?  Isn't this the way that 99.9% of humans have operated in the world since the beginning of time.  With very limited knowledge making decisions based on instinct, and intuition that is extremely limited, unaware of the "full range of scholarship" on any issues.  Even our leaders are largely unaware of the full range of scholarship on so many topics.  If this is dangerous, then virtually every human on the planet lives life quite dangerously. 

The typical paleolithic hunter-gatherer is expert in his environment, just as the neolithic farmer is in his.  Scholarship is completely absent from their world, the world of first naivete.  Even the tribal shaman is only expert on traditional medicines and is a purveyor of mythical explanations.  They are bereft of science, but manage to survive anyhow.  However  that does not imply only "instinct and intuition," as you wrongly suggest.  Even modern Mormon leaders are only expert in limited areas, such as law (Oaks), cardiology (Dr. Nelson), etc.  They are not trained linguists, archeologists, historians, or theologians., nor do they pretend to such knowledge or expertise.  They depend upon traditional religious understanding and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  They do not pretend to be scientists.

The danger for the Sorcerer's Apprentice is that he takes a small amount of knowledge and imagines that he is now able to reliably act upon it.  False.  Hybris is your nemesis.

Quote

 

Quote

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One may make life decisions with or without the help of the Holy Spirit.  However, one is bound to the infinite regress of secular decisions made within the prison of one's senses and logic alone (the vicious circle as seen by David Hume).  The Holy Spirit merely offers one way to escape from that vicious cycle, and which requires faith -- which implies self-delusion to many

Your assumption being that the Holy Spirit is an source of objective truths about external reality, and my assumption is that the Holy Spirit represents a subjective feeling within our mind that helps us feel comfort and aligns the thinking of our various different senses and experiences from our body and mind, and this gives a person personal peace about the decision making process.  

Unlike a scholar, you don't read carefully.  What I wrote actually asserts that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is subjective, not objective.  You weren't even aware that we agree on that, and thus you are completely confused about what we are discussing.  None of us has access to objective reality, which (as I said) takes advantage of the understanding of David Hume -- we are prisoners of our senses.  A good college course on critical thinking often proves helpful.

Edited August 8, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[mnn727]

6 hours ago, champatsch said:

I would like to get some more specifics on this question.  I get that those who don't believe in historicity think that Joseph produced the text, that the Lord didn't.  Is that accurate?

Not at all

[RevTestament]

16 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I’ve had many spiritual experiences with the Book of Mormon, but as I studied the book deeply over the past few years I came to the conclusion that it is not a literal history. Many hours of searching, reading, and learning went into this process, and I maintained a relationship with God throughout this time. I won’t be addressing the specific reasons for the transition in this post. Instead, I would like to describe my belief that the Book of Mormon is scripture, despite my conclusion about its claims to historicity.

For me, scripture takes principles of spirituality, morality, etc. and encapsulates them in narrative or in various types of revelation (e.g. vision, first person word of God). As countless students of the Book of Mormon can attest and as Joseph Smith claimed, the book does a fantastic job of describing how one can seek and achieve a relationship with God. The traditional view is that it does this well because it contains the writings of literal ancient Nephite prophets, and this view is in line with Joseph Smith’s testimony and the book’s text. However, some readers, like myself, have come to the conclusion that the book is not historical, yet still hold to the spiritual principles espoused therein. As those principles still bring me closer to God, the book functions as scripture for me even though I have broken from the traditional view.

The following are a few examples of spiritual truths I find communicated clearly by the Book of Mormon:

·       Be humble.

·       Depend on God and Christ for inner strength in changing yourself and overcoming problems of all kinds.

·       Seek revelation through study, prayer, and pondering.

·       Be courageous in the face of opposition.

·       Choose the right.

These principles are not dependent on historicity. For example, I can have spiritual experiences following the principles outlined by Nephi’s example and exhortations whether he was an actual person or not, and I do.

Having experienced a worldview-rending faith transition, I came out on the other side with a more flexible faith. I had to deliteralize my beliefs in many areas in order to make sense of everything I had learned, and one of the results was the paradox of accepting a book as scripture despite not believing its claims to historicity.

I understand the need of people to try to draw conclusions about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and I am sure you were diligent in your study. If in fact you, like many others, were trying to study the book within the context of a Mesoamerican setting and archaeology, I would have to conclude, like you, that the book is ahistorical, even though there are many interesting tidbits here and there about Mesoamerican culture, I have concluded that most of them coincide with the Book of Mormon that are at dates far too late. However, in my own study, I have been forced to the opposite conclusion - that the book is historical. I just had to divorce myself from the preconceived notions of the Church or seeming majority of Church members on the matter, and be willing to address the subject from fresh angles and prayer. I believe I have found many historical points about the Book of Mormon perhaps even down to its reformed Egyptian writing. It has been quite the interesting journey, and I look forward to publishing my results. Despite my lackluster prior attention to the Book of Mormon, I am now forced to conclude that there is no probable way Joseph Smith could have written the Book of Mormon on his own accord. I have verified so many of its points with actual modern findings that it is actually exciting. So contrary to my own prior lackluster attitude about the Book of Mormon, I am happy to say, I am no longer ambivalent about the book at all. I am happy to testify that the book not only contains true teachings, but is a true historical account of a people, and there are just too many archaeological findings which militate against the standard  ice age model for the peopling of the Americas for me to continue to believe it. I now believe the Americas to be a greater melting pot of peoples than such a narrow model allows. I just believe they are not all "Lamanites." However, just by virtue of trade and migration after the Book of Mormon times, I believe most Natives are related somehow to one another - just like when I go online and find I am related to essentially every President of the US as some form of distant cousin. So although I feel the book beginnings are essentially like looking for a needle in a haystack, it is now immediately relevant to all peoples in the Americas as well as the rest of the world.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

The early modern English idea is a curiosity, but it seems pretty early to make any hard conclusions about it either way.

If Joseph was merely dictating someone else's work from centuries earlier, then of course my comments about Joseph's prophetic vision would apply to that person instead. But according to Joseph's mother, at least, he was channeling stories of the native Americans from an early age.................................................

Exactly, and we have to ask at that point what sort of knowledge existed in 16th century England on the nature of the New World (which was considered to be the West Indies -- islands just west of India, which was already well-known to Europe). American "Indians" were believed to be from India, hence their name.  There was no separate American continent.  Columbus had merely found another, more direct route to the "Far East," which of course (in reality) is far west of America.  So, what sort of stories was this precursor to Joseph "channeling" back in 1540?  Rajah Manchou has made several suggestions along such lines recently on this board, but what do you think?

Edited August 8, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, champatsch said:

So, do you mean that Joseph composed it but he was inspired by God?

 

6 hours ago, Gray said:

Yes - that's what I think.

What about Moroni's visit to Joseph Smith? 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks Papa, I think I've traveled way to far outside the basic religious paradigm to find these words compelling.  I question the existence of God and why any entity would want us to have faith in that entity in the first place.  I tend to think that God is an experience our brains have evolved to have, and I'm trying to re-approach God from that basic paradigm, but do so in a way that feels like it contains integrity.  I'm still searching, still don't see the point in having faith in a doctrine or faith in a being.  I can see having faith in goodness and ethical principles.  Maybe thats my starting block.  

I just hear a lot of religious people claiming that faith is whenever you don't understand why God commanded something, you just need to ignore your doubts about it and push forward anyway, and that doesn't seem compatible with my current paradigm.  

Just deleted my first to these comments, or response. I  just realized my answer does not matter, it is just a spring board to continue your opportunity to voice your view that there is no faith, and that we are all just conditioned to be believing or have faith, because we know no better. It would seem that your thought about not truly believing is what you wanted all to understand about  "faith", but it was just a ruse.  I will not bother trying to answer such questions again. 

Edited August 9, 2017 by Bill "Papa" Lee

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I use the latest scenario with Elder Holland's sharing the story about the brother reuniting with his long lost brother on his mission to compare the BoM and Bible. Some historical mixed in with faith promoting. Or as with the BoM and Bible, some scaring up. 

That story was retracted by Elder Holland when he learned that a family member embellished the story. There is "faith promoting" and "lying". Most stories in scripture (if not all) are not written by family members. The sad circumstances of using that example is the disbelief everything that you wish not to believe, or dismiss everything that is an inconvenient truth. Such will leave you "tossed to and fro, by every wind and doctrine", which is never a happy place or circumstance to be in.

[Tacenda]

50 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

That story was retracted by Elder Holland when he learned that a family member embellished the story. There is "faith promoting" and "lying". Most stories in scripture (if not all) are not written by family members. The sad circumstances of using that example is the disbelief everything that you wish not to believe, or dismiss everything that is an inconvenient truth. Such will leave you "tossed to and fro, by every wind and doctrine", which is never a happy place or circumstance to be in.

I should have said that better, I don't believe Elder Holland knowingly lied, sorry about that. I just think the story is a mixture of a faith promoting story and some truth.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I should have said that better, I don't believe Elder Holland knowingly lied, sorry about that. I just think the story is a mixture of a faith promoting story and some truth.

He did not lie at all, lying requires intent. It means knowing the story is false, or making the story up. If I believe something someone says, and repeat it, I am guilty of trusting. But you extended the example to all scripture, which suggests that nothing can be trusted, that all stories in scripture are just faith promoting lies or in error. Either way, it is clear that little I say, or that anyone says matters. I fear I need to just stop trying, least I be called a liar, as Elder Holland has been called time and again, and end up with others rejoicing with glee finding me in error. I am just embarrassed I have allowed my ego to think I might make a difference. Either way, sorry if I have gone too far. 

[churchistrue]

8 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

There is, I think, a difference between inspired fiction and reality.  But one of the things that makes a fiction seem inspired and inspiring, for example, King Lear, or Scott Card's The Bully and the Beast, or Fairy Tale: A True Story (despite the title, a fictionalized version of a true story), or the Harry Potter Books, or Terry Pratchett's books, despite his professed atheism, which he later modified), is how effectively the fictions point to something that is real.  For instance, the Dementors in the Potter books unmistakably point to the experience of severe depression, which J. K.Rowling experienced, and for which, she came up with a real defense based not on fictional magic but the power of a happy memory.  

So if a fictional book of Mormon has any power, it must be in the way that it points to something real.  And I have several times published my views (in the Review and in Sunstone for example), that if a person finds an inspiring fictional Book of Mormon part of their spiritual life, then welcome to the community.  We're open to all who are willing.  Stereotyping is not a requirement.

But I do not think that a fictional Book of Mormon has a comparable power to define and bind a covenant community as a historic Book of Mormon does.  I've read all of Pratchett's discworld books several times, but I don't go to church, or tithe, or participate in communities for his work.  As inspiring as I find many other books, what I personally find most compelling about the Book of Mormon is that is points to real people, real history, real prophets, real divinity, a real resurrected Christ, a real restoration of a real priesthood.  I have personally tested the Book of Mormon in several ways, sometimes through personal research on my questions, sometimes through reading other's research pro and con on their issues and expertise, and I have consistently found that it rewards commitment and further study. My own reading had changed radically over my life, but always in the direction of more real, more exciting, more compelling.  I've found that I learn far more about the Book of Mormon from committed believers than skeptics.  The skeptics tend to leave the garden when they think they have the final answer.  The believers stay on, and nurture and watch other gardeners, and lo, an unexpected stem, leaf, blossom, and fruit shows up.  I know that people can take the same seeds, plant them in different soil (that is different temperaments and contextualization), different nurture (time and care and appropriateness), and judge it against different values (cares of the world, for instance), and obtain radically different harvests.

My own harvest has been, to me, at least, astonishing, a source of wonder and enlightenment, rather than disillusion.  I've published dozens of essays, making original contributions on several topics (NDEs, Type scenes, First Temple theology, etc.), and read hundreds more, gaining perspectives that otherwise would never have occurred to me.  That a 24 year old kid can impress experts and evidence across such a wide swatch of human history and knowledge is itself a phenomenon that ought to be acknowledged rather than avoided.  And as Larry Porter and Brant Gardner have said, "I can't un-see the dog."  (That is a metaphor, but the metaphor points to a real experience.)  And surprisingly often, the difference in harvests has clearly been in the soil, time, and nurture, rather than the nature of the word.  That has been the lesson I get from people, like Coe, and Brodie, and the Tanners, Vogel and Metcalfe, and David Wright, Palmer and Taves.  I can understand why they get a poor harvest, but that does not account in any way for mine.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I think people use Harry Potter and such to intentionally make the inspired fiction theory seem ridiculous. Why not compare it to Job or the allegory of Zenos or the parable of the Good Samaritan. All those are scripture and considered very powerful stories despite not being historical.

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Darren10 said:

 

What about Moroni's visit to Joseph Smith? 

I have no reason to think he didn't have some kind of visionary experience.

[Benjamin Seeker]

22 hours ago, Darren10 said:

While true that one can find good morality in fictional stories...

That's an unfair summary of my position. I almost didn't include the word morality in fear of someone latching onto that as if it was the primary point of my explanation as you do here. Please see the emphasis on developing a relationship with God, revelation, etc. in the OP.

[Benjamin Seeker]

22 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

I admire you for finding a way to believe in spite of your doubts.  I appreciate the spiritual battles you've obviously fought to arrive at this point.  While I believe Lehi and his family actually existed, I will gladly embrace you as my brother in the gospel.  I want you in the Church, and I think the Lord wants you to be here as well.

This is the the response I hope for every time I stick out my neck and talk about BOM Historicity. Thank you!!

[Darren10]

45 minutes ago, Gray said:

I have no reason to think he didn't have some kind of visionary experience.

Was then Moroni a historical figure or just claimed to be one to joseph Smith in order to write the Book of Mormon narrative? 

[Darren10]

5 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

That's an unfair summary of my position. I almost didn't include the word morality in fear of someone latching onto that as if it was the primary point of my explanation as you do here. Please see the emphasis on developing a relationship with God, revelation, etc. in the OP.

How do you develope a relationship with God including recieving revelation, especially increased revelations, without morality? And are not the good characteristics aquired through reading and believing the Book of Mormon as scripture you listed good mores? 

[Benjamin Seeker]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The meaning of the text changes dramatically whether it is grounded in history or not. For clarity I think we have to distinguish between historic grounds, accuracy and grounds for interpretive authority. That latter point is quite important. An obvious example of it is the difference between an actor on stage saying "I know pronounce you man and wife" versus a Justice of the Peace making the same performance. Within fiction there can be no authority due to certain types of performances being made fictional.

The question then becomes whether there are such performances in the text. I think there are many such performances such as promising. So if God makes promises to the descendents of the Lehites, it's hard to say those have any meaning if the text is fictional due to first there being no Lehites and second the inability of fiction to make such performances real. 

Beyond that huge problem for many aspects of the text (to the point it seems difficult to understand their place within the text - the text's style simply is unlike Job or Jonah due to those performances) there's the problem of the text's authoritative force. Jonah and Job have their function as illustrating some points, but the texts themselves have no authority. They can at best provide a place to think about issues. Indeed that is the place of all fiction due to the fact the texts reality is fully open to control by the author. We can dismiss say Ayn Rand's view of civilization falling down if CEOs flee to Colorado because it only works because Rand determines consequences in her fictional world. Real people don't act that way and consequences don't happen that way. In other words we can and ought always have deep and abiding suspicion of any consequences in fiction. It lacks authority precisely because it is fiction in a fashion true accounts don't.

Now of course most accounts are of varying accuracy. So it's not like there's an absolute divide between fiction and history. Yet history has a force of demand to the degree it is accurate that fiction never can. In the same way I might say I can walk off a cliff and fly, yet the real world will quickly prove my fiction wrong if I try. That means we have to be extremely suspicious of any fictional account.

People will quickly say that fictions are useful in scripture. And they are, but typically they are very, very short stories used to illustrate a point. Further these stories are grounded in authority by the historical authority of the one presenting them. Thus Jesus can use allegories of various sorts to illustrate his teachings. But the only reason we accept the teachings is because of the place of Jesus and his real world authority. Without that authority the value of the fiction again becomes purely to make us think.

The question then becomes whether "making us think" is enough. I don't think it is. We want some ground for believing things are true. The advocate for fiction might say that ultimately we have to confirm any interpretation we make of history. But there's something to be said for getting a confirmation of a text and then be able to make somewhat authoritative readings of it without having to confirm every reading in detail. I think fiction advocates simply downplay too much that common ground an authoritative text provides socially. If the Book of Mormon were fiction, that authoritative function for the text would be lost. 

I think everything you've written here is accurate. For me, the BOM is as authoritative as I choose. Frankly, for more traditional Mormons this kind of variable authority plays out in their lives in a practical sense, meaning though they intellectually give the book a kind of total authority, their daily choices limit or empower the text. For me, this limiting or empowering happens on an intellectual level first.

[Benjamin Seeker]

13 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

How do you develope a relationship with God including recieving revelation, especially increased revelations, without morality? And are not the good characteristics aquired through reading and believing the Book of Mormon as scripture you listed good mores? 

Morality is important. My complaint is that you seemed to reduce my position to "I learn moral lessons from the BOM."

Edited August 9, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Darren10]

2 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Morality is important. My complaint is that you seemed to reduce my position to "I learn moral lessons from the BOM."

Good values then? 

[Benjamin Seeker]

5 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Good values then? 

I used the terms spiritual truth and spiritual principles as that includes morality along with principles of revelation and communion with God, dependence on God/Christ's atonement for inner strength, and other concepts that are more far reaching than morality or good values. The BOM taught me to commune with God, and that's more than a moral lesson.