How an Ahistorical Book of Mormon Can Still Be Scripture

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

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

Actually Stanford Carmack has shown systematically that the BofM is a 16th century translation.  He cannot explain why, but he has established that as a fact.  How we each deal with it is up to us.  I can provide a full bibliography if you like.

[Benjamin Seeker]

30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

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?

I am interested in the betterment of human lives. The point of the OP is to discuss the spiritual worth of the Book of Mormon when viewed as ahistorical. This is something that betters my life and could help others who find themselves in my predicament.

That being said, I do find scholarship to be very worthwhile. I don't find lengthy debates rehashing arguments to be worthwhile, or at least not worth the time invested and especially not on the internet.

I don't believe that visions or revelations are completely objective representations of reality. I believe they are largely subjective experiences that may be influenced by the divine. I believe they are a non-supernatural human experience that God can utilize.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I am interested in the betterment of human lives. The point of the OP is to discuss the spiritual worth of the Book of Mormon when viewed as ahistorical. This is something that betters my life and could help others who find themselves in my predicament.

I am very interested in the betterment of human life, but bad scholarship will not get us there.  Science is scholarship, and we depend upon accurate science to advance human interests in a vast array of areas.  Literature is an important area of scholarship, and it can have a powerful effect upon the human psyche.  Great literature can be fact or fiction, and can help and entertain people in manifold ways.  The spiritual worth of fiction has never been in doubt, and the Bible, for example, contains a great deal of fictional parables, poetry, proverbs, and the like, which are very meaningful -- raising the question whether the OP had adequate focus or insight to begin with.

7 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

That being said, I do find scholarship to be very worthwhile. I don't find lengthy debates rehashing arguments to be worthwhile, or at least not worth the time invested and especially not on the internet.

I don't believe that visions or revelations are completely objective representations of reality. I believe they are largely subjective experiences that may be influenced by the divine. I believe they are a non-supernatural human experience that God can utilize.

So visions are not completely objective, but are largely subjective experiences -- non-supernatural experiences sometimes used by God.  So they can be both objective and subjective and natural.  But not imaginary. Now I'm really confused.

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am very interested in the betterment of human life, but bad scholarship will not get us there.  Science is scholarship, and we depend upon accurate science to advance human interests in a vast array of areas.  Literature is an important area of scholarship, and it can have a powerful effect upon the human psyche.  Great literature can be fact or fiction, and can help and entertain people in manifold ways.  The spiritual worth of fiction has never been in doubt, and the Bible, for example, contains a great deal of fictional parables, poetry, proverbs, and the like, which are very meaningful -- raising the question whether the OP had adequate focus or insight to begin with.

So visions are not completely objective, but are largely subjective experiences -- non-supernatural experiences sometimes used by God.  So they can be both objective and subjective and natural.  But not imaginary. Now I'm really confused.

No need to be confused. Just refer to your knowledge of NDEs and my statements will make more sense: on the subjective side we have variable deities and metaphorical experiences while on the seemingly more objective side we have consistent themes, elements, messages, etc. (I like using NDEs because they are a commonly known phenomenon).

[Benjamin Seeker]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am very interested in the betterment of human life, but bad scholarship will not get us there.  Science is scholarship, and we depend upon accurate science to advance human interests in a vast array of areas.  Literature is an important area of scholarship, and it can have a powerful effect upon the human psyche.  Great literature can be fact or fiction, and can help and entertain people in manifold ways.  The spiritual worth of fiction has never been in doubt, and the Bible, for example, contains a great deal of fictional parables, poetry, proverbs, and the like, which are very meaningful -- raising the question whether the OP had adequate focus or insight to begin with.

The last time I raised the idea of holding the Book of Mormon as ahistorical, my position was criticized as essentially a way out of the church. The OP was more or less a response to that criticism.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually Stanford Carmack has shown systematically that the BofM is a 16th century translation.  He cannot explain why, but he has established that as a fact.  How we each deal with it is up to us.  I can provide a full bibliography if you like.

I'll confess that I'm skeptical one could even in theory prove it is a 16th century translation. But I'm open to the evidence.  

I assume you mean something other than what he's published at the Interpreter. I see the elements Carmack has discussed there quite fascinating, I don't think he established that they were unknown in Joseph's environment although I think we can all agree they were uncommon in the 1820's. (As his points about distinctions between the OED and the 1828 Websters dictionary establishes) But uncommon isn't the same as not being present. That seems a much more difficult point to establish and would require strong data about local linguistic use in region. He showed it wasn't in Joseph's normal vocabulary and grammar, to the degree we have it. But that's not really sufficient to falsify the critics position.

Edited August 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Benjamin Seeker]

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So visions are not completely objective, but are largely subjective experiences -- non-supernatural experiences sometimes used by God.  So they can be both objective and subjective and natural.  But not imaginary. Now I'm really confused.

Actually, I think the clearest and most easily understood example are dreams. All of my statements are very easily understood when referencing dreams, and I believe they are true of other potentially revelatory phenomenon as well.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Actually, I think the clearest and most easily understood example are dreams. All of my statements are very easily understood when referencing dreams, and I believe they are true of other potentially revelatory phenomenon as well.

So are dreams always or only sometimes both subjective and objective, and potentially revelatory?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I'll confess that I'm skeptical one could even in theory prove it is a 16th century translation. But I'm open to the evidence.  

I assume you mean something other than what he's published at the Interpreter. I see the elements Carmack has discussed there quite fascinating, I don't think he established that they were unknown in Joseph's environment although I think we can all agree they were uncommon in the 1820's. (As his points about distinctions between the OED and the 1828 Websters dictionary establishes) But uncommon isn't the same as not being present. That seems a much more difficult point to establish and would require strong data about local linguistic use in region. He showed it wasn't in Joseph's normal vocabulary and grammar, to the degree we have it. But that's not really sufficient to falsify the critics position.

The systematic Early Modern English characteristics of the BofM are absent from Joseph's world.  This is not merely happenstantial stuff, but the exercise of a very different language, which Joseph did not understand.  Indeed, even Joseph himself thought it ungrammatical -- which it was in his day, but not in the 16th century.

Not clear what you mean by "that's not really sufficient to falsify the critics position."  What is the critics position which you refer to?  Are you speaking of people who fault Carmack, or people who declare Joseph a forger?

[Dexter Eli]

On 8/8/2017 at 6:29 PM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

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. 

Holland didn't lie or make anything up with all these details about what the man was feeling and wishing, and the details of the dogs reacting to the missionaries? None of that was lying or making things up? 

 

“With a rush of memory and guilt, regret and rage, he despised the very sight of them,” Elder Holland recounted. “But he was safe, because he kept all visitors at bay by employing two Doberman Pinschers who viciously charged the gate every moment that anyone came near.” The dogs startled the missionaries as they passed by and continued on, “our man on the porch laughing at the lovely little drama he had just witnessed, wishing only that the gate hadn’t restrained his two dogs.” Then, the two elders stopped, looked at each other, conversed a little, “likely said a silent prayer,” then turned around and approached the gate. “The Dobermans on cue charged the gate again, hit it, snarling, frothing, and then stopped in their tracks,” Elder Holland said. “They looked at the missionaries, dropped their heads, ambled back to the front steps and lay down.”

[Benjamin Seeker]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So are dreams always or only sometimes both subjective and objective, and potentially revelatory?

Dreams are clearly a normal human experience. We have canonical examples of dreams being used as a revelatory tool, and I believe I have have experienced revelatory dreams. When dreams are used as revelation they are often still subjective experiences. Lehi's tree of life dream is specified as symbolic, and there is a preface mentioning that the family had gathered seeds, linking the dream in a roundabout way to the Lehi's daily reality, as dreams generally often can be. So Lehi has a subjective experience that communicates spiritual truth. 

 

Edited August 10, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Dexter Eli]

Benjamin Seeker, 

You may have stated this somewhere so forgive me asking a question you may have already explained. So you believe the BOM is not historically true, but that it was inspired and it has value as something that makes you want to be a better person? Is that correct? And this is your view as someone IN the church who believes JS was a prophet or is this your belief as someone who doesn't believe the church is true but loves the BOM?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

The last time I raised the idea of holding the Book of Mormon as ahistorical, my position was criticized as essentially a way out of the church. The OP was more or less a response to that criticism.

Just because there is great literature that is fictional does not mean that all great literature is fictional.  Some books are fictional throughout, others are factual throughout.  It is important to know the difference.  The Bible deliberately contains both fiction and fact, depending on the genre of literature in each case.  Paul clearly intends that his letters be taken as fact.  The same applies to the Book of Kings (originally one book) in the OT.  I have tried to point out how that narrative historical genre works, and how it can be verified according to standard science in my “Book of Mormon Event Structure: The Ancient Near East,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 5/2 (1996):98-147.  Online at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1391&index=5 .

Do you feel that you adequately understand what it means to declare something "ahistorical," even though you may not know what it means to declare something "historical."

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Dreams are clearly a normal human experience. We have canonical examples of dreams being used as a revelatory tool, and I believe I have have experienced revelatory dreams. When dreams are used as revelation they are often still subjective experiences. Lehi's tree of life dream is specified as symbolic, and there is a preface mentioning that the family had gathered seeds, linking the dream in a roundabout way to the Lehi's daily reality, as dreams generally often can be. So Lehi has a subjective experience that communicates spiritual truth. 

Since dreaming dreams and seeing visions is a biblical trope, do you ever examine how it functions in the Bible?

Do you understand the difference between objective and subjective?  Between literal and figurative?

In the case of your revelatory dreams, do you believe that they are sent to you by God?  Did they communicate spiritual truth to you?  Does God exist?

[Benjamin Seeker]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Just because there is great literature that is fictional does not mean that all great literature is fictional.  Some books are fictional throughout, others are factual throughout.  It is important to know the difference.  The Bible deliberately contains both fiction and fact, depending on the genre of literature in each case.  Paul clearly intends that his letters be taken as fact.  The same applies to the Book of Kings (originally one book) in the OT.  I have tried to point out how that narrative historical genre works, and how it can be verified according to standard science in my “Book of Mormon Event Structure: The Ancient Near East,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 5/2 (1996):98-147.  Online at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1391&index=5 .

Do you feel that you adequately understand what it means to declare something "ahistorical," even though you may not know what it means to declare something "historical."

No need for any of the above. The Book of Mormon claims to be a literal account of real people, and that is the traditional view within the church. I am obviously talking about a position where the people and events are not believed to be literal, historical, pick a word that generally gets across that meaning. I'm pretty sure what I'm suggesting is fairly straight forward.

[Dexter Eli]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since dreaming dreams and seeing visions is a biblical trope, do you ever examine how it functions in the Bible?

Do you understand the difference between objective and subjective?  Between literal and figurative?

In the case of your revelatory dreams, do you believe that they are sent to you by God?  Did they communicate spiritual truth to you?  Does God exist?

Lighten up, Robert. Benjamin is obviously intelligent. He certainly knows the difference between "objective" and "subjective".  Take it easy. 

[Atheist Mormon]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

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.

Benji, you don't have to waste ton of time rethinking about BoM being Scripture, because it is a valid Scripture as OT/NT ever been. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since dreaming dreams and seeing visions is a biblical trope, do you ever examine how it functions in the Bible?

Do you understand the difference between objective and subjective?  Between literal and figurative?

Good call. I rushed into that example, hoping to use a canonical example and completely botched it. My mistake. Can I please have a do over? I do think dreams can be an excellent example of what I'm talking about, but they could always be interpreted as figuritive, which invalidates points about subjectivity.

Let me instead focus just on the subjective nature of revelation and use one of JS's early revelations that said there would be a "reformation" of the churches. When that didn't work out JS edited that portion out of the revelation. There is a pretty clear example of a portion of a revelation which was proven to be subjective because it turned out to be false. 

Quote

In the case of your revelatory dreams, do you believe that they are sent to you by God?  Did they communicate spiritual truth to you?  Does God exist?

I am open to a number of possibilities for the source of my revelatory dreams, but I lean towards a divine source for them. Yes, they contain spiritual truth. I believe in a benevolent something more which I call God, though I don't to hold to very many specific claims about God as I find them impossible to prove for the most part.

[Benjamin Seeker]

 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since dreaming dreams and seeing visions is a biblical trope, do you ever examine how it functions in the Bible?

Do you understand the difference between objective and subjective?  Between literal and figurative?

In the case of your revelatory dreams, do you believe that they are sent to you by God?  Did they communicate spiritual truth to you?  Does God exist?

 

1 hour ago, Dexter Eli said:

Lighten up, Robert. Benjamin is obviously intelligent. He certainly knows the difference between "objective" and "subjective".  Take it easy. 

Actually, though Robert does sound harsh here, I completely deserve it. My example was pretty terrible. Thanks for sticking up for me though.

[Benjamin Seeker]

9 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Benji, you don't have to waste ton of time rethinking about BoM being Scripture, because it is a valid Scripture as OT/NT ever been. 

Thanks for the dose of reality. This thread, as I explained in a couple posts to Robert above, is responding to the criticism that believing the Book of Mormon is ahistorical is a ticket out of the church. I started the discussion with an explanation of how I value the BOM as scripture and intended to respond to criticisms of the spiritual validity of this position as they popped up.

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, Dexter Eli said:

Benjamin Seeker, 

You may have stated this somewhere so forgive me asking a question you may have already explained. So you believe the BOM is not historically true, but that it was inspired and it has value as something that makes you want to be a better person? Is that correct? And this is your view as someone IN the church who believes JS was a prophet...

More or less, yes to all the above.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

 

 

Actually, though Robert does sound harsh here, I completely deserve it. My example was pretty terrible. Thanks for sticking up for me though.

I like you, Benjamin.  Not that it is that important to others to hear, just felt it was right to say it.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Calm

[Benjamin Seeker]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I like you, Benjamin.  Not that it is that important to others to hear, just felt it was right to say it.

 Thanks, Calm! I really appreciate that. 

[hope_for_things]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

"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 .

This is a complete false comparison.  The sorcerer's apprentice is a novice who gets over his head because of ambition and curiosity before having a more complete understanding.  The religious traditionalist inserted into that same story would be casting spells without even consulting a book for understanding because they would arrogantly assume that education is unnecessary and dangerous.  The traditionalist would ignore the environment as it manifestests itself in real time and would stick to the program naive to the damage being done and holding out hope that their original traditionalist approach would somehow work in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.  

The Dr. Petersen talk that I read the write up about in the Dnews has some interesting ideas I don't disagree with but he seems to overstate his case and in some ways try to demonize the atheist.  I also think he overstated some evidence and i don't think religionists need to feel threatened by the secular or I competition with it.  

[mfbukowski]

On 8/7/2017 at 11:28 PM, 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.

I think it is not necessary to take sides in this type of discussion.  I see either point of view, that the BOM is literal history, or that the BOM is not literal history as acceptable to faithful LDS members.

Even those who believe in the historicity- and I would include myself in that group- accept that idea totally on faith because there is virtually no scientific evidence for the position.  Lack of evidence is not evidence that these events did not happen.   Even in the Bible, where historicity is not a factor usually. one accepts the spiritual principles based on faith.  Eyewitnesses to the crucifixion failed to accept the atonement or see it spiritually

I see very little difference spiritually between the two sides.  Both require a leap of faith, it's just about a different subject.

 

Edited August 10, 2017 by mfbukowski