How an Ahistorical Book of Mormon Can Still Be Scripture

[Bobbieaware]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

I've encountered this many times - a deep sense of religious schadenfreude based on the assumption that someone who believes different from you will get theirs when you're finally proved right at the end of days.

 

On the contrary, I think I'm a realist.

A realist because for you everything except for pure thought and abstract principles floating in the ether are unreal? Will you still consider yourself to be a realist if Moroni turns out to be a real resurrected person who was once lived as a mortal man on planet earth? And if Moroni does turn out to be a real man, will you then have to accept a whole new paradigm of reality, one that you now utterly reject?

A final question: Do you believe Jesus Christ was a real man, i.e. a real-life historical figure who once lived and breathed on this earth?

Edited August 9, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Forgive me, I just assumed that you were really wanting an answer, I did not realize you would reject the every answer, I or others might give. You don't have to have faith in scripture or God, you are free to chose to have faith, just as you are free to reject any explanation or answer. Forgive me for butting in on the thread and your beliefs. Sometimes I foolishly think I can add to or answer certain questions or concerns. 

I think we both just have very different experiences right now.   Honestly, I don't see myself "rejecting every answer" out there.  I'm looking for things that feel authentic to me and many of the more orthodox perspectives aren't currently working.  I wasn't trying to get attention for my views, I am continuing to seek understanding that feels right to me.  I appreciate you attempting to share perspective that work for you, and i wasn't trying to dismiss that, just to say that I think our perspectives were pretty far apart and I wasn't sure where to move forward.  Thanks for acknowledging and for participating.  No harm, no foul.  

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Nothing personal but I haven't read a more of an absurd thread topic like this lately; Where's ever discussed that BoM was not a scripture?

Lol, good point! I'll have to rethink that title and the vocabulary of the thesis, but I'm guessing you get the main point is how I accept the Book of Mormon as a spiritually significant scriptural text personally despite my qualms with its claim to historicity.

[churchistrue]

28 minutes ago, champatsch said:

To adherents of an ahistorical view of the Book of Mormon:

Does anyone believe that the Lord revealed an ahistorical account to Joseph, not clarifying that it wasn't historical?

Among the ahistoricalists, I probably take more of an extreme version in terms of how clear and direct the voice of the Lord is in this. I look at it as a process that's more similar to say Handel composing The Messiah. Human creativity with a divine influence. How much is human and how much is divine is never clearly understood. To say it's a purely human work would be wrong. And to say it's a purely dictated from God would not be right either. I guess in the end, we know it was from God when we observe empirically its power to transform lives and bring them to Christ. We know it's from man when it includes error or cultural views that are wrong or harmful.

 

[Bobbieaware]

On 8/8/2017 at 0:25 PM, Gray said:

Yes - that's what I think.

If this is true, why do you think a man who was inspired enough to produce the Book of Mormon didn't just tell the people right from the start that what he produced was "inspired fiction," not a history, thereby avoiding so many problems?" 

Why would a man who was inspired enough to produce the Book of Mormon feel he had to create a pastiche of elaborate lies (something God abhors) and recruit a bunch of dishonest co-conspirators, in order to create a fictitious provenance for what was actually nothing more than a book of fiction?

How do you square a man being a prophet of God while simultaneously being a chronic and pathological liar?

Edited August 10, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Benjamin Seeker]

16 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Among the ahistoricalists, I probably take more of an extreme version in terms of how clear and direct the voice of the Lord is in this. I look at it as a process that's more similar to say Handel composing The Messiah. Human creativity with a divine influence. How much is human and how much is divine is never clearly understood. To say it's a purely human work would be wrong. And to say it's a purely dictated from God would not be right either. I guess in the end, we know it was from God when we observe empirically its power to transform lives and bring them to Christ. We know it's from man when it includes error or cultural views that are wrong or harmful.

 

I don't think you're in the extreme. I personally am open to a number of possibilities with yours falling more or less at the center of my spectrum (hope that makes sense).

Edited August 9, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Storm Rider]

On 8/8/2017 at 1:36 AM, 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 take it that using the same standard you have also found the Bible to be ahistorical?  

[Benjamin Seeker]

54 minutes ago, champatsch said:

To adherents of an ahistorical view of the Book of Mormon:

Does anyone believe that the Lord revealed an ahistorical account to Joseph, not clarifying that it wasn't historical?

Hey Champatsch, I acknowledge that there are some mysterious elements in to the Book of Mormon, including EmodE. However, while the EmodE in the text intrigues me, it doesn't sway me in terms of the historicity claims of the text.

 

[Gray]

39 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

A realist because for you everything except for pure thought and abstract principles floating in the ether are unreal?

 

I don't recognize these ideas as belonging to me. Perhaps someone else misplaced them? I'd suggest putting them into the lost and found.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Will you still consider yourself to be a realist if Moroni turns out to be a real resurrected person who was once lived as a mortal man on planet earth? And if Moroni does turn out to be a real man, will you then have to accept a whole new paradigm of reality, one that you now utterly reject?

 

Sure. If the Buddha appears to me in bodily form I will also need to rethink some things.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

A final question: Do you believe Jesus Christ was a real man, i.e. a real-life historical figure who once lived and breathed on this earth?

Yes, very much so.

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

If this is true, why do you think a man who was inspired enough to produce the Book of Mormon didn't just tell the people right from the start that what he produced was "inspired fiction, not a history, thereby avoiding so many problems?" 

I think Joseph Smith believed it was a history.

 

21 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Why would a man who was inspired enough to produce the Book of Mormon feel he had to create a pastiche of elaborate lies (something God abhors) and recruit a bunch of dishonest co-conspirators, in order to create a fictitious provenance for what was actually nothing more than a book of fiction?

How do you square a man being a prophet of God while simultaneously being a chronic and pathological liar?

I wouldn't call Joseph Smith the names you called him, but I would say that his experience in treasure hunting might have had something to do with the way he presented his revelation. Lots of theater in treasure digging, apparently.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Forgive me, I just assumed that you were really wanting an answer, I did not realize you would reject the every answer, I or others might give. You don't have to have faith in scripture or God, you are free to chose to have faith, just as you are free to reject any explanation or answer. Forgive me for butting in on the thread and your beliefs. Sometimes I foolishly think I can add to or answer certain questions or concerns. 

What we are witnessing here is very similar to what occurred at the time of the great apostasy, when the meridian Church of Christ was transformed from within by neo-platonist apostates who rejected the idea of a material God. There are now practicing members within the Church who want to transform the Book of Mormon from a historical account of real events that took place in the material world into what the apostle Paul referred to as "cunningly devised fables," I wonder if the leaders of the Church are aware of this development?

As for myself, I have no serious problem with such people remaining in the Church as long as they are proactively transparent, wasting no time to let each new bishop and stake president know immediately that they believe the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, that there were no real Nephites, no real gold plates and no real angel Moroni. They should also make this fact known at each and every temple recommend interview. This way the leaders will be fully informed so as to be able to rightly decide how and where members who think this way can serve. For example, I personally wouldn't want such people to teach in the primary.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I don't recognize these ideas as belonging to me. Perhaps someone else misplaced them? I'd suggest putting them into the lost and found.

 

 

 

Sure. If the Buddha appears to me in bodily form I will also need to rethink some things.

 

 

Yes, very much so.

But you simultaneously believe the account of resurrected Christ's ministry to the Nephites is fictitious. Why do you accept the Biblical account of Christ's ministry as being a record of real events (I'm presuming you must at least believe the Biblical account of Christ's ministry)), but then reject the accounts of his ministry in the Book of Mormon as being historical?

Edited August 9, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Kevin Christensen]

20 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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?  

Since my review quotes Taves on the point of her book, I don't think I am missing the point.  I'm interested in the implications her secular perspective, one pointed manifestation of which is her utter disconcern with the Book of Mormon as relevant in accounting for Joseph Smith's experience.  And that, I think, has implications for the thesis of her book.  Kuhn points out that the scientists working within a specific paradigm are not testing that paradigm in their work.   They are puzzle solving within the parameters of the paradigm, not testing the paradigm itself.

If I adopted the tactics of a conspicuous President, and simply tweeted at her book, "Fake News!", that would show a tribal level of thinking.  "Us" versus "Not us." What does not flatter me and make me look good is "Fake News!"   But I am not doing that.  Paradigm debate is necessarily comparative..  I have to "prove the contraries" as Joseph Smith aptly put it, I have to wrestle with both sides.  And I have not just dismissed an opponent as "Not us", but should also not just dismiss an opponent using the ideology and approach inherent in my own paradigm.  That is the beam in my own eye that I should examine first, in order to see clearly.  Paradigm debate involves asking "Which problems are more significant to have solved."  She doesn't think that the Book of Mormon is even a problem worth addressing beyond it being "Large and complex."  It happens that while she references the Scott Dunn's American Apocrypha/Sunstone essay on "Spirit Writing" and the Book of Mormon, and mentions Robert Rees's response in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, she overlooks the essay by Richard L. Anderson on "Imitation Gospels and Christ's Book of Mormon Ministry"

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/apocryphal-writings-and-latter-day-saints/4-imitation-gospels-and-christ-s-book-mormon

This to me is one of the top 10 essays ever produced on the Book of Mormon.  Anderson survey's a range of modern gospels, including the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ (which I have read), the Urantia Book (I have read Martin Gardner's detailed account of how it was produced, something that has much more in common with A Course in Miracles than the Book of Mormon), The Sorry Tale (which Dunn heavily depends on), and several others.  He also refers to Per Beskow's book on Strange Gospels (which I have read) as well as to Dunn and Kirster Stendhal in their comments on the Book of Mormon.  And Anderson also compares the Book of Mormon to both the distinct Pesher form demonstrated in the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the criteria for identifying authentic sayings of Jesus.   Because many of these books happen to have been produced in ways that also invite comparison with the modes of creativity and mental processes that Taves describes, the ways in which Anderson demonstrates that the Book of Mormon is distinctly different also highlights the weakness of her case in utterly neglecting the text and contexts and best commentaries on the complexities of the Book of Mormon that are unparalleled in the Big Book of AA and A Course in Miracles.  And of course, the Book of Mormon also happens to contain and illustrate the 12 Steps of addiction recovery.  So, yes, I can easily accept that Bill Wilson was inspired.  It's harder for me to accept Helen Schucman as divinely inspired, given the strange social relationship involved, and her own disinterest in the Course she produced.

And there is also Ian WIlson's book All in the Mind, an exploration of hypnotic regression claims, which involves some of the same primary researchers and discoveries that Taves uses regarding mental states and creativity and hypnosis.  But Wilson is far more interested in tracking down the sources behind the stories that emerge than is Taves.

And as Kuhn also says, paradigm debate involves deciding which paradigm is better and which problems are more significant to have solved.   If my work openly states and considers the implications of my own perspective, is deliberately comparative, and uses criteria of assessment for "better" and "more significant" that are deliberately not completely paradigm dependent, then I am not doing the same thing that Taves is doing.  I'm attempting to step from my perspective to the data and consider the differences in what is illuminated and how, and which perspective casts more and better light.

I am writing for a different audience yes.  And I am a member of a different audience.  That has implications which invite open consideration.  She is openly secular.  And I am openly a believer.  But are my criteria of assessment something better and more significant than simply saying "Not us?"  That is the question.  And that is why I wrote "Paradigms Crossed" 22 years ago.

And as far as constructing narratives, Kuhn has a fantastic chapter on that as well, on how scientists reconstruct their own narratives for each post paradigm set of text books.  That, I submit, is the un-examined beam in the eye of those who get over excited about ongoing changes in LDS narratives.  See "The Invisibility of Revolutions."  The same thing happens everywhere.  So it should not be taken as scandalous when it happens to Mormons.  The problem is not the changes in understanding, but the expectation that nothing should change.  Take that beam out of your eye, and begin to see clearly.

There is a huge difference when considering a narrative's validity, in considering whether it is or should have been perfect and unchanging, or realizing that all narratives, models, parables, theories, paradigms, metaphors and symbols are tentative and imperfect.  The point is whether we have ways of assessing whether we can or ought to have faith, that flawed or not, a narrative points towards something that is real that and not completely dependent on that narrative, that is, not completely self-referential, like Escher's Drawing Hands.  That happens to be the key flaw in John Charles Duffy's Sunstone essay on Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates.  While he refers to Kuhn, he over-generalizes from the wrong paragraph, missing Kuhn's explicit statements regarding criteria that are not paradigm dependent.  And so Duffy offers his readers a map with no compass and no legend, no way to make sense of what they see other than labeling everything as "socially constructed".  His editors quote a reader  saying "If this is true, what meaning does my life have?" as if this state is a good thing, proof of insight on his part.  And that mental state, interestingly enough, does not represent Position 9 of the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth.  But this fits:

Quote

There are seven ways a person can go [Between Position 4 and Position 5].       

 

Transition 1.  The person can make the transition by modifying dualism  drastically to where one no longer trusts authority to have any answers, and they think it will be a long, long time before they will; therefore, there is really no way to be judged by them.  Bitterness sets in, as it seems as if rewards don't come by hard work and rightness, but by good expression and arbitrary factors.  With an inability to distinguish between abstract thought and "bull", disillusion settles and blinds the person to where they become dangerously cynical and take advantage of any opportunity to get gain.

And that leaves the point of whether imperfect narratives point to something that is Real, or rather to just a limited and limiting group Orthodoxy, or subjective desire.  Which is why Buddha under the Bo tree was tempted by Maya, the Illusion of the World, it is why ancient temples were guarded by figures representing Fear and Desire as obstacles we must pass to enter the Real, and why the Bible recommendations for seeing truth involve deliberately putting our preconceptions and desires at risk, if we want to find out what is real.

For all the uncertainties in the world, I learned something as a very small child, while visiting the Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur quarry, when I saw bones in the rocks.  Much has changed and changed and changed again about the meaning of those bones, but nothing I have learned since then has changed the underlying awareness that the bones were real.  And thus is it with the bones of my faith. 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited August 9, 2017 by Kevin Christensen

[Gray]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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?

When you put it like that, it makes me think that the author must have been an American. The Book of Mormon is so very American, after all.

Some researchers see artifacts of 16th century English in the Book of Mormon. Is that enough to overcome the 19th century artifacts? Both can be interpreted and explained in many different ways. So much in the BOM seems to have written from a post-Biblical perspective, at the very least.

The scholarship on this stuff is so tentative and new that I tend to take a "let's wait and see attitude"  to any particular theory. Of course I have my own world view and assumptions and guesses, but they're not set in stone.

 

 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I think Joseph Smith believed it was a history.

 

I wouldn't call Joseph Smith the names you called him, but I would say that his experience in treasure hunting might have had something to do with the way he presented his revelation. Lots of theater in treasure digging, apparently.

So the prophet Joseph Smith, who by very job description is supposed to be able to rightly discern between truth and falsehood, is nothing if not totally delusional. Why would the almighty and omniscient God of truth have to resort to deluding someone with a with false visions of people who never existed and highly elaborate fictitious fables when the truth is just as readily at hand? God is not in the business of delusion, that's Satan's job.

To be honest, I'm now beginning to wonder if you aren't playing mind games here for entertainment, like a cat toying with mice. You've got to know what you are spouting here is something the God of truth could never do or allow. If you are not playing mind games, then you are trying to do the impossible, believe and yet disbelieve at the same time. In your heart, you've got to know an honest God would not have to resort to wholesale trickery and deceit to establish his latter-day kingdom.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

So the prophet Joseph Smith, who by very job description is supposed to be able to rightly discern between truth and falsehood, is nothing if not totally delusional. Why would the almighty and omniscient God of truth have to resort to deluding someone with a with false visions of people who never existed and highly elaborate fictitious fables when the truth is just as readily at hand? God is not in the business of delusion, that's Satan's job.

Joseph Smith, like others in the time/place he lived in, had some superstitious notions. That also applies to every Biblical prophets too. The NT mentions casting lots - random chance as a fill-in for the manifestation of the will of God.

God does not delude, collude or intrude. Anyone can access inspiration, however, if they are in a state to tune to it. In this case the revelation isn't the story about the Nephites. The story is just a vehicle. The revelation is the spiritual principles in the story.

 

8 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

To be honest, I'm now beginning to wonder if you aren't playing mind games here for entertainment, like a cat toying with mice. You've got to know what you are spouting here is something the God of truth could never do or allow. If you are not playing mind games, then you are trying to do the impossible, believe and not believe at the same time. In your heart, you've got to know an honest God would not have to resort to wholesale trickery and deceit to establish his latter-day kingdom.

It sounds like you haven't really considered all the possible ways belief in God can be expressed. Not everyone holds to the same model for God. God isn't in the business of tricking anyone or telling anyone what to do. God is not a human being who speaks words. God is existence itself.

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Since my review quotes Taves on the point of her book, I don't think I am missing the point.  I'm interested in the implications her secular perspective, one pointed manifestation of which is her utter disconcern with the Book of Mormon as relevant in accounting for Joseph Smith's experience.  And that, I think, has implications for the thesis of her book.  Kuhn points out that the scientists working within a specific paradigm are not testing that paradigm in their work.   They are puzzle solving within the parameters of the paradigm, not testing the paradigm itself.

If I adopted the tactics of a conspicuous President, and simply tweeted at her book, "Fake News!", that would show a tribal level of thinking.  "Us" versus "Not us." What does not flatter me and make me look good is "Fake News!"   But I am not doing that.  Paradigm debate is necessarily comparative..  I have to "prove the contraries" as Joseph Smith aptly put it, I have to wrestle with both sides.  And I have not just dismissed an opponent as "Not us", but should also not just dismiss an opponent using the ideology and approach inherent in my own paradigm.  That is the beam in my own eye that I should examine first, in order to see clearly.  Paradigm debate involves asking "Which problems are more significant to have solved."  She doesn't think that the Book of Mormon is even a problem worth addressing beyond it being "Large and complex."  It happens that while she references the Scott Dunn's American Apocrypha/Sunstone essay on "Spirit Writing" and the Book of Mormon, and mentions Robert Rees's response in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, she overlooks the essay by Richard L. Anderson on "Imitation Gospels and Christ's Book of Mormon Ministry"

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/apocryphal-writings-and-latter-day-saints/4-imitation-gospels-and-christ-s-book-mormon

This to me is one of the top 10 essays ever produced on the Book of Mormon.  Anderson survey's a range of modern gospels, including the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ (which I have read), the Urantia Book (I have read Martin Gardner's detailed account of how it was produced, something that has much more in common with A Course in Miracles than the Book of Mormon), The Sorry Tale (which Dunn heavily depends on), and several others.  He also refers to Per Beskow's book on Strange Gospels (which I have read) as well as to Dunn and Kirster Stendhal in their comments on the Book of Mormon.  And Anderson also compares the Book of Mormon to both the distinct Pesher form demonstrated in the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the criteria for identifying authentic sayings of Jesus.   Because many of these books happen to have been produced in ways that also invite comparison with the modes of creativity and mental processes that Taves describes, the ways in which Anderson demonstrates that the Book of Mormon is distinctly different also highlights the weakness of her case in utterly neglecting the text and contexts and best commentaries on the complexities of the Book of Mormon that are unparalleled in the Big Book of AA and A Course in Miracles.  And of course, the Book of Mormon also happens to contain and illustrate the 12 Steps of addiction recovery.  So, yes, I can easily accept that Bill Wilson was inspired.  It's harder for me to accept Helen Schucman as divinely inspired, given the strange social relationship involved, and her own disinterest in the Course she produced.

And there is also Ian WIlson's book All in the Mind, an exploration of hypnotic regression claims, which involves some of the same primary researchers and discoveries that Taves uses regarding mental states and creativity and hypnosis.  But Wilson is far more interested in tracking down the sources behind the stories that emerge than is Taves.

And as Kuhn also says, paradigm debate involves deciding which paradigm is better and which problems are more significant to have solved.   If my work openly states and considers the implications of my own perspective, is deliberately comparative, and uses criteria of assessment for "better" and "more significant" that are deliberately not completely paradigm dependent, then I am not doing the same thing that Taves is doing.  I'm attempting to step from my perspective to the data and consider the differences in what is illuminated and how, and which perspective casts more and better light.

I am writing for a different audience yes.  And I am a member of a different audience.  That has implications which invite open consideration.  She is openly secular.  And I am openly a believer.  But are my criteria of assessment something better and more significant than simply saying "Not us?"  That is the question.  And that is why I wrote "Paradigms Crossed" 22 years ago.

And as far as constructing narratives, Kuhn has a fantastic chapter on that as well, on how scientists reconstruct their own narratives for each post paradigm set of text books.  That, I submit, is the un-examined beam in the eye of those who get over excited about ongoing changed in LDS narratives.  See "The Invisibility of Revolutions."  The same thing happens everywhere.  So it should not be taken as scandalous when it happens to Mormons.  The problem is not the changes in understanding, but the expectation that nothing should change.  Take that beam out of your eye, and begin to see clearly.

There is a huge difference when considering a narrative's validity, in considering whether it is or should have been perfect and unchanging, or realizing that all narratives, models, parables, theories, paradigms, metaphors and symbols are tentative and imperfect.  The point is whether we have ways of assessing whether we can or ought to have faith, that flawed or not, a narrative points towards something that is real that and not completely dependent on that narrative, that is, not completely self-referential, like Escher's Drawing Hands.  That happens to be the key flaw in John Charles Duffy's Sunstone essay on Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates.  While he refers to Kuhn, he over-generalizes from the wrong paragraph, missing Kuhn's explicit statements regarding criteria that are not paradigm dependent.  And so Duffy offers his readers a map with no compass and no legend, no way to make sense of what they see other than labeling everything as "socially constructed".  His editors quote a reader  saying "If this is true, what meaning does my life have?" as if this state is a good thing, proof of insight on his part.  And that mental state, interestingly enough, does not represent Position 9 of the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth.  But this fits:

And that leaves the point of whether imperfect narratives point to something that is Real, or rather to just a limited and limiting group Orthodoxy, or subjective desire.  Which is why Buddha under the Bo tree was tempted by Maya, the Illusion of the World, it is why ancient temples were guarded by figures representing Fear and Desire as obstacles we must pass to enter the Real, and why the Bible recommendations for seeing truth involve deliberately putting our preconceptions and desires at risk, if we want to find out what is real.

For all the uncertainties in the world, I learned something as a very small child, while visiting the Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur quarry, when I saw bones in the rocks.  Much has changed and changed and changed again about the meaning of those bones, but nothing I have learned since then has changed the underlying awareness that the bones were real.  And thus is it with the bones of my faith. 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Kevin,

Thanks for your response, I am still looking forward to your review and I will give it a fair read, primarily because I trust from what I've observed that you are typically very fair and thoughtful in your approach as a believer, and you've earned that trust from previous comments and discussions with me.  

I should be a little vulnerable in sharing some of my bias here, and perhaps with more time on a faith journey I will feel differently and be able to approach things more objectively, because I do highly value objectivity in principle and I strive for it, but if I'm being honest on issues like this I'm probably not being as objective as I would like to be.  

As I first started to learn about troubling church history, I looked directly to church apologists for answers to my questions.  I found some arguments that were satisfying and gave me peace about different troubling topics, but as additional questions arose and upon deeper research I found many of the apologetic arguments didn't hold up to scrutiny for me.  This eroded the trust I have in Mormon apologetics in general, and since apologists are not a monolith, I've tried to pick and choose and identify the authors that I feel are being more open and honest about things, and those that are less so.  So as I read essays and books by different individuals who work in Mormon studies, I'm essentially keeping score in my mind of those that I've found to be trustworthy and those that aren't.  Typically if I read multiple things from an author that I find to be disingenuous I will be less likely to read additional work by that same author.  Richard L. Anderson unfortunately is one author I'm not likely to give another chance to based on prior distrust of works I've read of his.  

For an alternate reading on works that compare to the production of the BoM, I thought Richard Van Wagoner put together a nice summary in the back of his recent book Natural Born Seer.  

It would be interesting to hear Taves response to your upcoming book review.  As far as I can tell she is highly respected in the Mormon scholarly community, and is very respectful of others and engages regularly with believers on these topics.  I especially liked the back and forth she had with Steven Harper on the first vision.  

Thanks for explaining more to me about paradigm evaluation and your perspective there and about Kuhn and everything else.  I'm learning, slowly on these things, and your comments are helpful in that education process.  Best wishes!  

[Kevin Christensen]

18 hours ago, churchistrue said:

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.

Personally, I use Harry Potter as an example of inspired fiction because I believe it to be inspired. 

Quote

―all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world,
unto man, are the typifying of [Christ]‖ (2 Nephi 11:4).

It would take an obtuse reader to miss exactly what is being typified in the chapter in The Deathly Hallows titled "Kings Cross".

I don't think the inspired fiction theory of the Book of Mormon is ridiculous.  I just don't think it is correct, that it best accounts for the content and claims of the Book of Mormon and the experiences of Joseph Smith and the witnesses.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

When you put it like that, it makes me think that the author must have been an American. The Book of Mormon is so very American, after all.

Some researchers see artifacts of 16th century English in the Book of Mormon. Is that enough to overcome the 19th century artifacts?

The point is, Gray, that there are no 19th century artifacts in the BofM.  Since it was published in 1830, it is true that people read it as 19th century literature, and they imagine it to fit that preconception, but there is no evidence to support the claim.  Indeed, we have systematic linguistic evidence placing it in the 16th century.  The major disjunctures with the 19th century include::

1.  Even though “Joseph Smith’s own life at the time of the translation included influential women such as his mother and his wife of less than a year, those seeking the origins of the book in his personal history have to somehow explain the absence of any accounts of courtship, romance, or maternal interaction.”  (Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide [Oxford Univ. Press, 2010], 288 n. 3).

2.  Despite claims that the early 19th century is Joseph’s source for the Book of Mormon, Richard Bushman took a hard look at this typical, oft-repeated claim and found it wanting.  Bushman terms the Book of Mormon “almost postmodern in its self-conscious attention to the production of the text” (Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling,87), thus, by implication, lending itself well to analysis via the Documentary Hypothesis.  Instead of the vast numbers of parallels claimed by anti-Mormons, Bushman shows how out-of-synch the BofM is with then contemporary thought: “the American story does not control the narrative” (101); the BofM “does not plant seeds of democracy in the primeval history of the nation” (102), etc.

3.  Note Bushman's observation that the Book of Mormon "patriotically [honors] America by giving it a biblical history. And yet on closer reading, the Book of Mormon contests the amalgam of Enlightenment, republican, Protestant, capitalist, and nationalist values that constituted American culture. . . . Against increasing wealth and inequality, the Book of Mormon advocates the cause of the poor. Against the subjection of the Indians, it promises the continent to the native people. Against republican government, it proposes righteous rule by judges and kings under God’s law. Against a closed-canon Bible and non-miraculous religion, the Book of Mormon stands for ongoing revelation, miracles, and revelation to all nations. Against skepticism, it promotes belief; against nationalism, a universal Israel. It foresees disaster for the nation if the love of riches, resistance to revelation, and Gentile civilization prevail over righteousness, revelation, and Israel . . . the Book of Mormon can be read as a ‘document of profound social protest’ against the dominant culture of Joseph Smith’s time" (Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 104-105).

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Both can be interpreted and explained in many different ways. So much in the BOM seems to have written from a post-Biblical perspective, at the very least.

The scholarship on this stuff is so tentative and new that I tend to take a "let's wait and see attitude"  to any particular theory. Of course I have my own world view and assumptions and guesses, but they're not set in stone.

You might want to take into account this video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j-8nh3ctxk .  The scholarship is anything but tentative now.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The evidence for the breastplate or the interpreters (two stones in a bow) are very scant.  Physical plates are all Joseph would have had to manufacture really and the evidence that nobody saw that artifact uncovered, but just felt it or lifted it is interesting.  The evidence around the eight witnesses experience leaves enough ambiguity about whether or not their experience was a visionary one.  

Joseph was not a blacksmith, and he did not have the capacity to create such a plates forgery.  If someone else did it, Joseph would have been ratted out.  In any case, tin and lead leaves would not have approximated the characteristics of a gold-alloy.  See my "The ‘Golden’ Plates,” FARMS Update, October 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 275-278.  Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847 , and at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=81 .  There are many witnesses.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

EmodE research is too new for me to critique, but honestly it makes no sense to me and I'm not convinced it is paradigm altering as you're implying.  

You probably need to read all of Carmack's articles and see this video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j-8nh3ctxk . I can provide a full bibliography, if you need it.  Early Modern English research is not new. 

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Michael Quinn came up with the simpler explanation, the autumnal equinox and folk magic which coincides with his treasure digging activities at the time.  As for other dates you can find a lot of parallels in anything if you look hard enough, humans are amazing at pattern recognition and creatively identifying things that didn't exists in the first place. 

Yes, even as great a scholar as Quinn overlooked the far more impressive Jewish calendar correlations.  Why?  Because he was not aware of them.  It is nonsense to suggest that one can make a pattern out of anything.  For example, if that were true, why is it that biblical scholars have never been able to establish a convincing birth or death date for Jesus?  The biblical and Classical sources don't allow it.  It is simply false to argue that one can make a pattern out of anything.  Humans are amazing at pattern recognition where there are in fact patterns.

[longview]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

It sounds like you haven't really considered all the possible ways belief in God can be expressed. Not everyone holds to the same model for God. God isn't in the business of tricking anyone or telling anyone what to do. God is not a human being who speaks words. God is existence itself.

Philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, longview said:

Philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

You've just described all religion, including scripture itself!

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Robert, I respect your careful approach to BOM Historicity. I've considered each of your rebuttals, and I respectfully disagree. I'd rather not start a long debate over them as generally they take up a lot of time, won't change either of our opinions, and won't do much in terms of bettering our lives.

I'm not discussing the betterment of human lives, but rather scholarship -- which does take much time, as you correctly observe.  However, I am reminded of the old saying that, "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."  You may not be comfortable with scholarship, and it may not make you happy, or better your life, particularly when it places a lion in your path.  It is no advantage to you or others to hold scholarship in derision simply because it is a bother and takes "too much time."  Scholarship is very serious business, and cannot be ignored, despite not bringing you a sympatico feeling of comfort.  All of us might want to just rest with our comfortable apriori notions, and you certainly have a right to yours, but don't expect that no one will notice, nor expect that they will not comment in critical ways.  Brace yourself, Brother.

7 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I do want to point out your mischaracterization of my approach to the visions of Joseph Smith. You flattened my position to "imaginary events," but I clearly left room in my position for more than just imaginary events. In fact, I would be very reticent to invoke the word imaginary at all.

Perhaps I misread you and misunderstood what you were saying.  In what way were Joseph's visions not imaginary?  Were they objectively real? Did that also apply to the witnesses?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The point is, Gray, that there are no 19th century artifacts in the BofM.  Since it was published in 1830, it is true that people read it as 19th century literature, and they imagine it to fit that preconception, but there is no evidence to support the claim.  Indeed, we have systematic linguistic evidence placing it in the 16th century.  The major disjunctures with the 19th century include::

There definitely are elements that seem out of place in the 19th century and I agree with you there. Critics often suggest those elements could be found in other traditions Joseph might have been exposed to. They make those arguments with varying degrees of success. Typically the 19th century elements are ambiguous and could be tied to numerous contexts (much as say elements like chiasmus could) 

That said, I'm not sure we should say there are no 19th century artifacts. That is I'm not a at all convinced Skousen has shown it's a 16th century translation rather than a 19th century translation. At best he's shown some elements more in common with 16th century language are in it. That's a bit different from saying it's not 19th century since one would have to be able to show those linguistic elements didn't persist in rural America through the early 19th century. I just don't think there's enough data to possibly be able to argue that negative case. Which is of course not the same as saying the critics can make their case either. At best the critics are in the position akin to where apologists are on different matters. That is they can argue it's possible that 16th century artifacts persisted but can't establish it is likely.

Most of what critics do is show how a 19th century context allows a consistent reading. Which is fine, but of course much less than saying it's a 19th century production with any degree of confidence (IMO). That they accept that it is 19th century is more due to apologists not being able to make a likely case for it being legitimate for various reasons. (Not that apologists are saying one ought accept it as an ancient text without revelation to confirm it)

However the problem with saying there are no 19th century artifacts is that I strongly suspect there are translation artifacts. That's different from what I think Skousen is arguing. I don't think we should say there are no 19th century elements in the text - although I admit distinguishing 16th century and 19th century elements can be tricky.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Relying on traditional religious understanding can be just as dangerous as the Sorcerer's Apprentice who is attempting to master something that they have little to no personal experience with.  One of the problems with traditional religious understanding is that it contains the assumptions of past cultures and times, and if new understanding and light and knowledge is coming into the world, to hold to the past tradition in the light of new understanding, can be damning, harmful, and evil.  I think we see this frequently from conservative institutions like religions.  

....................................................

"Relying on traditional religious understanding can be just as dangerous as the Sorcerer's Apprentice."  Just the opposite is the case.  The Sorcerer's Apprentice is an ignorant and childish beginner.  He has no seasoning.  He has not yet completed his long training program.  Indeed, far from being "damning, harmful, and evil," religious institutions and their adherents turn out to be better adjusted to life in general, have better health and longevity, are more psychologically stable, have better marriages, and are far more happy than those who are not religious.  Prof. Dan Peterson went over that phenomenon in great detail, with the research to back it up, in his lecture at the most recent FairMormon Conference, "What Difference Does It Make?" Provo, Utah, August 5, 2017, Scott Lloyd's summary online at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865686266/FairMormon-speaker-What-difference-does-religious-faith-make.html .