How an Ahistorical Book of Mormon Can Still Be Scripture

[Calm]

"It does not even require that one be a scholar with a degree in order to carry out such basic research."

What they do with what they find, there it helps to be a scholar given the extravagant claims made by some for books like theLate War.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again what 16th century texts did he compare? You said you were willing to give a bibliography on this point. I didn't see any when I looked. Not that my survey was comprehensive but I guess by your logic it's up to you to prove my survey of Carmacks writings wasn't comprehensive enough. (Grin)

I provided a nice video above, but am not sure that you were interested.

You might find some previous discussions on this board helpful:  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68220-book-of-mormon-text-analysis-computer-study-idea/?page=1 and http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68793-kjv-in-the-book-of-mormon/?page=2#comment-1209715457 .  I offered the bibliography to you several times here, but you didn't ask for it.  Well, here it is:  

Carmack, Stanford, “A Look at Some ‘Nonstandard’ Book of Mormon Grammar,” Interpreter, 11 (2014): 209-262, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-look-at-some-nonstandard-book-of-mormon-grammar/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book of Mormon Authorship,” Interpreter, 13 (2015): 175-217, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/what-command-syntax-tells-us-about-book-of-mormon-authorship/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “The Implications of Past-Tense Syntax in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter, 14 (2015): 119-186, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-implications-of-past-tense-syntax-in-the-book-of-mormon/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “Why the Oxford English Dictionary (and not Webster’s 1828),” Interpreter, 15 (2015): 65-77, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/why-the-oxford-english-dictionary-and-not-websters-1828/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “Exploding the Myth of Unruly Book of Mormon Grammar,” lecture at BYU English Language of the Book of Mormon Conference, April 9, 2015, video online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHJzY_9RZ4E 

Carmack, Stanford, and Royal Skousen, “Editing Out the ‘Bad Grammar’ in the Book of Mormon,” BYU lecture May 15, 2016, video online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuMOQDJagQ8 

Carmack, Stanford, “The More Part of the Book of Mormon Is Early Modern English,” Interpreter, 18 (2016): 33-40, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-more-part-of-the-book-of-mormon-is-early-modern-english/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “Joseph Smith Read the Words,” Interpreter, 18 (2016): 41-64, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/joseph-smith-read-the-words/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “The Case of the {-th} Plural in the Earliest Text,” Interpreter, 18 (2016):79-108, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-case-of-the-th-plural-in-the-earliest-text/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “The Case of Plural Was in the Earliest Text,” Interpreter, 18 (2016):109-137, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-case-of-plural was-in-the-earliest-text/ .

Carmack, Stanford,  “How Joseph Smith’s Grammar Differed from Book of Mormon Grammar: Evidence from the 1832 History,” Interpreter, 25 (2017): 239-259, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/how-joseph-smiths-grammar-differed-from-book-of-mormon-grammar-evidence-from-the-1832-history/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mormoninterpreter+(Interpreter%3A+A+Journal+of+Mormon+Scripture+(RSS)) .

Edited August 12, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

I usually  have my standard reply or input about this topic.  It got me thinking to the very first article I ever read about similar issues.  Anthony A Hutchinson`s A Mormon Midrash:  Lds Creation Narratives.  An Lds scholar who went to the Catholic University to get a doctorate in bible studies.  Wrote one of the chapters in A New Approaches to the Book of Mormon.  In searching for him I found out he knew Greg Prince well and is now an Episcopal Priest.  I first learned words like Hermeneutics and Apologetics by reading his first paper.  I didn't know why to do with what I read and it was troubling.  Articles in Dialogue can be that way though.  Speaking of Dialogue articles, Blake Ostler:  The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Document.  

Didn't know that Tony Hutchinson had become an Anglican (Episcopal) priest.  On that account, he still has the Melchizedek priesthood, and still accepts the notion of priesthood authority being passed down.  However, the problems he detected in Mormonism all apply equally well to Anglicanism.  At least he is making good use of his religious training at CUA.

[Okrahomer]

16 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I believe such people may participate in Church if they so desire, but they absolutely must be totally transparent with their bishops and stake presidents, making sure the priesthood leaders fully understand they believe the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction and the that Nephite prophets never existed as real people. They should also proactively admit to holding these views during temple recommended interviews. By being transparent in this way, the leaders will be properly informed to know how such people might serve in the Church.

I agree with you.  Based on experience, I think most folks do make their feelings known.  Faith (to me) is a living thing--it can wane, and it can wax.  But I would rather have a brother or sister whose faith has waned struggling in the midst of the Saints than outside.  Otherwise, helping them and/or receiving help becomes a lot more difficult.  I definitely lean toward the "help thou mine unbelief" side of things, because I have seen firsthand folks' unbelief change.

[Kevin Christensen]

11 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

I usually  have my standard reply or input about this topic.  It got me thinking to the very first article I ever read about similar issues.  Anthony A Hutchinson`s A Mormon Midrash:  Lds Creation Narratives.  An Lds scholar who went to the Catholic University to get a doctorate in bible studies.  Wrote one of the chapters in A New Approaches to the Book of Mormon.  In searching for him I found out he knew Greg Prince well and is now an Episcopal Priest.  I first learned words like Hermeneutics and Apologetics by reading his first paper.  I didn't know why to do with what I read and it was troubling.  Articles in Dialogue can be that way though.  Speaking of Dialogue articles, Blake Ostler:  The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Document.  

Regarding Hutchinson's Dialogue article, I read that when it came out, and it rattled me for a few days.  Then I saw a connection between his diagrams of the Hebrew Cosmos, and a passage in Hamlet's Mill, and that led to my first LDS publication in Dialogue.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V24N03_123.pdf

Much more could be said, and has been said by other people, and I've learned a great deal since then.  But there is it.

And speaking of Ostler's important essay, he let me include this comment in one of my essays:

Quote

As new evidence surfaces indicating that primary ideas previously thought to be Christian were in fact excised from the preexilic text, the content of the plates rather than Joseph Smith’s midrashic expansion should grow. In my original article, I suggested, for example, that the phraseology of secret societies in the Book of Mormon seemed to be nineteenth century—it turns out that a lot of what I suggested was nineteenth century may well be explainable in terms of ancient counterparts. By the way, I don’t credit Vogel’s theory with any explanatory ability at all—the Book of Mormon does not discuss a Mound-Building culture, and nothing that Vogel has said, even at great length and verbosity, persuades me in the least that the Book of Mormon was addressing the Mound Builders in any way—not even in the sense that they were discussed in the nineteenth century. He’s just off the mark in my view.¹⁷⁵

I wanted to comment on Vogel’s potshot that the expansion theory of the Book of Mormon is ad hoc. A theory is ad hoc if it is not indicated or supported by any evidence but is merely an explanatory device to save a theory from its own problems. However, Vogel hasn’t made any attempt to account for the evidence of an ancient source that I discussed. He hasn’t provided anything like an adequate explanation of the covenant renewal festivals that are rather clearly present in the Book of Mormon. He hasn’t even discussed the Hebrew judicial procedures that are accurately presented in Abinadi’s trial and in Samuel the Lamanite’s prophetic lawsuit against the Nephites. He has failed altogether to discuss the prophetic call form that I identified. It is easy to call a theory ad hoc if one simply ignores all the evidence that disagrees with one’s own position, as Vogel does. His own theory—that Joseph Smith drew on the nineteenth-century culture for Primitivist Christian elements and on Mound-Building theories in particular—is extremely weak and doesn’t even begin to account for the contrary evidence that others and I have discussed. His judgments are based on his own blinders. I arrived at my theory after taking a look at the evidence and asking what kind of explanation is necessary to explain what I see. In my view, that is how theories are developed. Vogel, on the other hand, started from the commitment that the Book of Mormon had to be a nineteenth-century work and simply went looking for anything that would support his prejudices (that is also a problem with eisegesis).¹⁷⁶

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1458&index=14

On the topic of pre-exilic religion and the Book of Mormon being "too Christian before Christ", which circumstance defines most of Ostler's 1987 suggestions for expansions, there is this sort of thing:

My "The Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament"

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=4

and Barker's take on the Book of Mormon

http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3731&context=byusq

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Glenn101]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Do you have a reference for this and what books were looked at.

His articles are on the interpreter. I do not recall if he details every book he went through.

Glenn

[smac97]

On 8/11/2017 at 1:14 PM, Glenn101 said:

I do not understand why you assert that "nobody saw the artifact uncovered." The statement in the Book of Mormon avers that "we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship." I know that there have been efforts made to disparage those testimonies and claim that they were only visionary manifestations, but I find it hard to accept such unapolegics in the face of that statement.

Glenn

I concur.  Characterizing the statement "we did handle with our hands" as "leav{ing} enough ambiguity about whether or not their experience was a visionary one" is a mighty big stretch.

I think this sort of thing is what Elder Oaks had in mind when he, speaking of the Book of Mormon, said this:

Quote

There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors’ declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship.

To advance the "Inspired Fiction" theory is to reject/ignore the key salient evidences about it.  This theory requires us to reject what the Book of Mormon says about itself, and what Joseph Smith said about it, and the Three Witnesses, and the Eight Witnesses.  These are the key pieces of evidence for the Book of Mormon (secondary to revelations from the Spirit).  I just don't think that works.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[readstoomuch]

6 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding Hutchinson's Dialogue article, I read that when it came out, and it rattled me for a few days.  Then I saw a connection between his diagrams of the Hebrew Cosmos, and a passage in Hamlet's Mill, and that led to my first LDS publication in Dialogue.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V24N03_123.pdf

Much more could be said, and has been said by other people, and I've learned a great deal since then.  But there is it.

And speaking of Ostler's important essay, he let me include this comment in one of my essays:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1458&index=14

On the topic of pre-exilic religion and the Book of Mormon being "too Christian before Christ", which circumstance defines most of Ostler's 1987 suggestions for expansions, there is this sort of thing:

My "The Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament"

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=4

and Barker's take on the Book of Mormon

http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3731&context=byusq

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

It was worth quite a bit.  I have read your articles before.  You are prolific, so I can`t say that I am an expert on them and sometimes they just go over my head.  The article that you wrote that quoted from Ostler was really quite good.  Vogel and Metcalf have been big players in the past about naturalistic explanations in the Book of Mormon.  I think people read the CES Letter or a blog and think that no one has thought or known about alternative explanations for the Book of Mormon.  I think your article with the Expansion Theory are quite useful. I think these articles  (yours and Ostler`s) and others are so informative to the Book of Mormon discussion.  Every one gets so hung up on finding artifacts and archeological evidence that they miss these ideas.  Not that there aren't some artifacts and archeological evidence that are interesting.  Just nothings that "proves" the Book of Mormon in the way some want. So thanks for chiming in Kevin.    

[readstoomuch]

Kevin.  Whoa, I just started looking at your Hutchinson article.  It is awesome.  The Hutchinson article deserves to be read with it, though.  

This brings up an issue.  Hutchinson left the Church, at least in part as much as I could tell from my internet search, from not feeling like there was a place for him with his nonliteral, non historical take on Lds scriptures and the Bible.  It is obvious that he still has some belief in God as he is serving as a priest.  Evangelicals have trouble with liberal Protestants who don`t take the scriptures literally.  This creates a divide or tension between the groups.  Within the Mormon community there is a similar tension between those who are literal and those who are open to ahistorical explanations of the Book of Mormon.  Maybe the same tension exists between how much one group thinks Church history should be taught in much greater detail and those who don`t.  I would hope that we could still make room for those who are ahistorical about the BoM.  I don`t think it is nearly as difficult of an issue as the social issues that seem to come up all the time.  

[hope_for_things]

20 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

All of that evidence is from secondary sources. The statement in the Book of Mormon while not the original (obviously) is the document that they all agreed on. It was published in every copy of the Book of Mormon from the very first. To rebut that one must provide something just a s strong, such as a written statement from the participants themselves that they did not really see and touch the plates or see the engravings of curious workmanship.

Glenn

I find the evidence compelling enough to bring the official statement into serious question.  

[hope_for_things]

20 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Now you have gone from being critical to just being skeptical. Stanford has published a series of papers on the findings that Royal Skousen initially discovered and which he has followed up on. The facts are not hard to follow. Stanford has researched the Early Modern English that appears in the Book of Mormon and the period(s) of time in which it was used. He also has scoured sources that might have been available to Joseph Smith with instances of Early Modern English which couls have influenced Joseph's usage as well as Joseph's own writings as well as books, newspaper articles, books, etc. from Joseph's cultural environment for instances. I do not remember all of the details at the moment, but the information is readily available if you wish to inform yourself. One does not have to be a linguist to check to see if an expression is Early Modern English. And if one has access to the Oxford English Dictionary, it can be determined the time frame when it appeared in the English language. One can also search publicly available books and documents for those phrases. It does not even require that one be a scholar with a degree in order to carry out such basic research.

There are scholars that maybe disagree with some of Stanford's conclusions, but I know of none that dispute the information he has produced. I actually tried to stay away from the supernatural aspects of the situation. What I have noted is that the strong presence of the Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon, barring some unforeseen, as of now, linguistic discovery, effectively rules out Joseph Smith or any of his contemporaries as the author. What a critic must do to have any valid basis for an argument is to find a plausible naturalistic explanation for that Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon. And again, unearthing (more) evidence that rules out Joseph as the author of the Book of Mormon is not evidence that it is historical.

Glenn

The burden of providing an explanation for BoM authorship is on the proponents of this new EModE theory.  I'm a skeptic yes, and skepticism ought to be a default position for new theories especially ones that question authorship for a book that the majority of scholars both believing and non believing generally agree that JS was the author.

You sound like a big fan of his work, but I'm skeptical and will take a more conservative approach to evaluating a completely paradigm shifting theory as fantastical as this one.  

[Kevin Christensen]

23 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

Kevin.  Whoa, I just started looking at your Hutchinson article.  It is awesome.  The Hutchinson article deserves to be read with it, though.  

This brings up an issue.  Hutchinson left the Church, at least in part as much as I could tell from my internet search, from not feeling like there was a place for him with his nonliteral, non historical take on Lds scriptures and the Bible.  It is obvious that he still has some belief in God as he is serving as a priest.  Evangelicals have trouble with liberal Protestants who don`t take the scriptures literally.  This creates a divide or tension between the groups.  Within the Mormon community there is a similar tension between those who are literal and those who are open to ahistorical explanations of the Book of Mormon.  Maybe the same tension exists between how much one group thinks Church history should be taught in much greater detail and those who don`t.  I would hope that we could still make room for those who are ahistorical about the BoM.  I don`t think it is nearly as difficult of an issue as the social issues that seem to come up all the time.  

Thanks.  Ben McGuire has in the past made other very significant comments on Hutchinson's essay.  Some years back he impressed me by observing that all of the expansions in Moses happen to come at seams between sources, which raises the question, how did he know?  

And there is this interesting document that Hutchinson did not discuss, though Nibley had mentioned it in the Enoch essays.

http://www.thinlyveiled.com/abbaton.htm

Any social group has tensions.  Different personality types (I like the Myers Briggs Types), different stages of personal development (I like the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth), different paradigms (I like Kuhn), and different personal and cultural backgrounds, not to mention age, gender and all that.  For all of that, I like the meaning of the word "sustain."  If you look it up in a good dictionary, you'll find it means basically "put up with the crap." 

Regarding LDS members who have different views on the Book of Mormon, well, we just had the thread with Tom Nibley chiming in on David O. McKay, and there is also McKay's famous defense of Sterling McMurrin, the vocal unbeliever.  However, one thing I notice about McKay is that he was clearly open to learning more, which is why he championed Nibley's publications.  And McMurrin contributed meaningfully how he could. And the tension between believers in historicity and those who favor ahistoricity goes more than one way.  At an SLC Sunstone in 2002, I saw a friend of mine walking through the halls and said hello.  "What are you doing here?" she asked.  I held up a copy of my just published "Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker's Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon Studies."  She said, "Before you say anything, the Book of Mormon is a 19th century fiction, and nothing you say could ever change my mind.  I never read anything from FARMS.  It makes me mad."   I had a similar welcome when I posted a few times over at the Mormon Stories boards.  I was clearly not welcome.  And Dehlin eventually deleted most of my posts under the Coe interview, effectively excommunicating me and erasing me from that society.  And there was the time I opened up a Sunstone and found an article by Dan Vogel attacking my work and faith.  And then there was what happened to FARMS at BYU in 2012, and Bill Hamblin's experience at BYU in being heavily discouraged from writing on the Book of Mormon for years.  So it's not all literalist thinkers scorning alternative thinkers.  We have many different kinds in the gospel net (Brigham's nice metaphor).  All that means, is that if I want to find like thinkers, if I make an effort, I can find them.  I also like to find people who can teach me things I don't know.  There are many of them.

But personally, I go to church because I believe the core claims, how other people there treat me or not has nothing to do with why I am there.  And there are times when I've proven that.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited August 14, 2017 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[Rajah Manchou]

I'm curious what the general opinion is on Dr. Paul Owen's suggestion that the Book of Mormon could be an Old World text describing the New World:

"What I am suggesting, in essence, is that the Book of Mormon could be taken as a genuinely restored ancient text with a fictional narrative that originated in the Old World, an account that bore some connection to the mysterious (and probably later) History of the Rechabites. Sometime after 421 CE, a Christian apocryphal book was penned in the deserts of Palestine. I will call it the History of the Lehites. This book told a story (set in the days prior to the fall of Jerusalem in the 6th-century BC) of the voyage of a Jew named Lehi, who traveled with his family to a new promised land found on the other side of a great body of water, their settlement in that land, their wars and subsequent history, and the visitation of the resurrected Savior among them. Perhaps due to its anti-establishment ecclesiology, or its small circle of exposure in the Christian world, the History of the Lehites was soon lost to the sands of time. Maybe its influence was eclipsed and replaced by the more widely known History of the Rechabites. However, its valuable contents reappeared through Moroni’s apocalyptic disclosure to Joseph Smith (now with updates and expansions appropriate to the religious and cultural concerns of nineteenth-century America). 

Moroni’s words to Joseph, indicating that the Book of Mormon contained “an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang” (Joseph Smith—History 1:34), in this view, would still be an accurate summary of the fictional (though ancient) narrative as Joseph received it from the angel...The broad outlines of this apocalyptic approach to the Book of Mormon is one that has significant explanatory scope and one that I think should be given more consideration on both sides of the debate over the origins of this fascinating text of scripture." -  Dr. Paul Owen, Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture: A Thematic Analysis of 1 Nephi 13–14

If we assume the Book of Mormon is an Old World document translated in the early 16th century, the pieces do begin to fall into place.

Edited August 13, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The burden of providing an explanation for BoM authorship is on the proponents of this new EModE theory.  I'm a skeptic yes, and skepticism ought to be a default position for new theories especially ones that question authorship for a book that the majority of scholars both believing and non believing generally agree that JS was the author.

You sound like a big fan of his work, but I'm skeptical and will take a more conservative approach to evaluating a completely paradigm shifting theory as fantastical as this one.  

To answer your last statement first, it is not that I am a "big fan" of Stanford's work. I am appreciative of the amount of time and effort he has put into his research on the Early Modern English that has been found in the Book of Mormon, and that of Royal Skousen and Robert F. Smith in their work on the Book of Mormon critical text project. It was that latter work which produced the initial discovery about the early Modern English. It was a surprise to me, and a lot of other people also. For most of my sentient life I was under the (mistaken) impression that the Book of Mormon was couched in the language of the King James version of the Bible and that the bad English grammar was due to the Hebrew or maybe Egyptian constructs that have been identified in the Book of Mormon. Most of that bad grammar has been shown to be acceptable Early Modern English grammar.

I do not agree that most believing scholars feel that Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon. I think that believing LDS scholars would agree that Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon to the scribes by the gift and power of God. There is disagreement about just how that was effected, i.e. whether God transmitted ideas to Joseph's mind and he transliterated those ideas into words, sentences, etc. in the scriptural language of the day, which was pretty much the King James version of the Bible at the time. (I hope I am not mangling what those scholars have actually been saying.) Then there are scholars that feel the text of the Book of Mormon was transmitted to Joseph pretty much word for word. This is something that the heavy presence of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon indicates to Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack, and a few others. There is disagreement on that yet. The disagreement is not that there is Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon. There is disagreement that it is something that was alien to Joseph Smith in his cultural and linguistic environment. Stanford has done a lot of research on that subject. The only disagreement right now that I have seen is that his research into Joseph's linguistic environment might not have been exhaustive enough.

Most non-believing scholars, especially early on, were confident that Joseph could not have been the author of the Book of Mormon. I don't really know what any of them that take the Book of Mormon seriously actually believe. If you have any examples of non-LDS scholars that have authored an opinion on Joseph's authorship, please let me know.

It is hardly the burden for Stanford or Royal to prove who authored the Book of Mormon. Their contention on the matter is that the presence of the EmodE was something that was alien to Joseph Smith's linguistic environment and as such points away from Joseph or any of his contemporaries as the actual author of the text.

The linguistics is beyond my level of expertise. I don't even speak American English very correctly. But the logic of the argument is fairly easy to follow. The Book of Mormon text contains a lot of Early Modern English that was mostly obsolete during the era in which the King James Bible was translated and very little of that is found in the KJV bible. Stanford's research has revealed few texts available in Joseph's day with any of the EmodE found in the Book of Mormon. He has searched the documents that have been confidently attributed to Joseph as the actual author and has found no matching Early Modern English there. He has not found it in any of the books of the day that were written imitating the KJV style. And thus far he has not found it in any documents by people in his linguistic environment. Stanford maintains that without Joseph somehow being exposed to the Early Modern English it would be impossible for him to have produced it accidentally.

Being skeptical is okay but does not bring anything to the table except skepticism. Being critical is also okay, and it brings to the table contrary facts, etc. with which one can deal.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I find the evidence compelling enough to bring the official statement into serious question.  

I am sure you will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with that assessment.

Glenn

[Dexter Eli]

On 8/10/2017 at 11:36 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

I'll offer a short response. In the OP I explained how the Book of Mormon functions as scripture to me. Joseph Smith functions as a prophet to me in a very similar way. First off, he was instrumental in the revelatory creation of texts that contain important spiritual truth  (as I've defined it in this thread). He taught spiritual truth and demonstrated it in his life. He set up a religious community based on said principles that continues in various forms until today. Essentially, he communed with God himself and enabled others to do so as well including myself.

But does literal truth matter? 

Did JS really receive the priesthood from Peter, James and John? If not, is the priesthood real today? If yes, then why do you believe that occurred but not other things JS claimed happened?

[cdowis]

BOTTOM LINE

Proposed: BOM is not authentic history.  Ergo, Moroni did not exist.  

Joseph Smith was a liar from the very beginning about the visit of this nonexistent Angel Moroni, so he was a fake. a false prophet.  QED

[Dexter Eli]

15 minutes ago, cdowis said:

BOTTOM LINE

Proposed: BOM is not authentic history.  Ergo, Moroni did not exist.  

Joseph Smith was a liar from the very beginning about the visit of this nonexistent Angel Moroni, so he was a fake. a false prophet.  QED

This is what is so fascinating about the trend to argue that the church is true while admitting the BOM is not literally true. I am surprised by how many active mormons are willing to continue to believe the church is true while not believing the BOM is literally true. There seem to be a lot of roadblocks to being able to believe both of those things. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 hours ago, Dexter Eli said:

But does literal truth matter? 

Did JS really receive the priesthood from Peter, James and John? If not, is the priesthood real today? If yes, then why do you believe that occurred but not other things JS claimed happened?

 

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

BOTTOM LINE

Proposed: BOM is not authentic history.  Ergo, Moroni did not exist.  

Joseph Smith was a liar from the very beginning about the visit of this nonexistent Angel Moroni, so he was a fake. a false prophet.  QED

 

2 hours ago, Dexter Eli said:

This is what is so fascinating about the trend to argue that the church is true while admitting the BOM is not literally true. I am surprised by how many active mormons are willing to continue to believe the church is true while not believing the BOM is literally true. There seem to be a lot of roadblocks to being able to believe both of those things. 

I totally understand the apparent tension between professed belief in the gospel and rejecting the historicity of the BOM. However, holding this position doesn't neccesitate that JS was a liar.

I believe that JS and Oliver Cowdery had sincere experiences to begin with, and I think what they understood about those experiences evolved over time. For example, that's why I think a number of early church members, including Peter Whitmer, are surprised by JS and OC saying in 1835 that Peter, James, and John had delivered the priesthood to them. David Whitmer and others said that they had never heard anything about it. At the same time there are 1830 and 1831 reports saying that OC had comversed with angels, and 1833 report that JS had seen Jesus and the Apostles. Point is, I believe they had real experiences that they imbued with meaning over time, and I think that they overreached.

Another example would be Moroni. In the earliest reports he is just an angel. It wasn't until much later that the angel was given a name, at least in print. My best guess is that JS really had transcendent spiritual experiences that led to the creation of the BOM, but that JS' interpretation and report of those experiences reflected his assumptions and understanding.

And yes, I have had to deliteralize many of my beliefs. That means my belief in JS as a prophet and in the church and gospel are much different and less stringent than a TBM position. This also means that I feel free to filter the 19th century Protestant and esoteric understanding/context that litters the foundation of the church.

Dexter, clear as mud? If I can clarify more, please let me know.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Dexter Eli]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I totally understand the apparent tension between professed belief in the gospel and rejecting the historicity of the BOM. However, holding this position doesn't neccesitate that JS was a liar.

I believe that JS and Oliver Cowdery had sincere experiences to begin with, and I think what they understood about those experiences evolved over time. For example, that's why I think a number of early church members, including Peter Whitmer, are surprised by JS and OC saying in 1835 that Peter, James, and John had delivered the priesthood to them. David Whitmer and others said that they had never heard anything about it. At the same time there are 1830 and 1831 reports saying that OC had comversed with angels, and 1833 report that JS had seen Jesus and the Apostles. Point is, I believe they had real experiences that they imbued with meaning over time, and I think that they overreached.

Another example would be Moroni. In the earliest reports he is just an angel. It wasn't until much later that the angel was given a name, at least in print. My best guess is that JS really had transcendent spiritual experiences that led to the creation of the BOM, but that JS' interpretation and report of those experiences reflected his assumptions and understanding.

And yes, I have had to deliteralize many of my beliefs. That means my belief in JS as a prophet and in the church and gospel are much different and less stringent than a TBM position. This also means that I feel free to filter the 19th century Protestant and esoteric understanding/context that litters the foundation of the church.

Dexter, clear as mud? If I can clarify more, please let me know.

I don't think I ever called him a liar, and I understand that one can believe JS didn't literally meet with angels but that he also didn't lie about it. Maybe JS dreamed that he met with angels, and maybe those dreams were inspired by God, and therefore JS didn't lie but actually didn't meet with angels. In other words, when JS explained that he met with angels people may have interpreted that he really met them but perhaps his "visions" were dreams of visitations, not actual visitations. BUT, the church prides itself on having the direct authority from God by the laying of of hands and that JS brought about the end of the Great Apostasy by the restoration of the priesthood which can only be accomplished by the laying on of hands, and that Peter, James and John (and others) literally restored all the keys and priesthoods by physically visiting JS and ordaining him with all the necessary keys/powers. IF this did not literally happen, then the church would lose its claim to be the true gospel restored. And if the church claims this literal ordaining is not necessary, then it also loses its claim as the only true church because then perhaps many inspired people throughout history received these keys from some method other than the laying on of hands. 

I can respect those who try to maintain their faith while admitting that the BOM is not literally true. But to do that, one would have to bend and twist and ultimately contradict so many teachings of the gospel and of the prophets that it seems untenable to me. 

And this has been preached by the modern prophets. I distinctly remember GBH in General Conference saying JS really did all the things he said he did or he is a complete fraud. Taking middle ground on JS is reasonable in many ways, but it's putting one at odds with JS, with current prophets, and with those who have left the church. It's an interesting niche where one is pretty much still believing in the gospel while disagreeing with the true blue mormons and those who have left the church. And if one wants to hold onto the core (Jesus Christ) without the details of the LDS version of Christianity, but just a belief in Jesus Christ, why not do just that? I'm not being snarky, I'm curious as to how you navigate between those who believe in the literal truth of BOM and church history, and those who disregarded all of it when they concluded it wasn't literally true. And have you ever considered letting all the details go and just believing in Christ? Why or why not? 

Let me emphasize I am asking with all respect. I am not advocating one position over another, I am just curious about your beliefs. 

 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Another example would be Moroni. In the earliest reports he is just an angel. 

"Moroni also appears along Palmyra roads as a nice “old man… going to Cumorah” and elsewhere, with “white hair,” dressed in “gray apparel,” wearing an “army knapsack” and a “military half cocked hat.” ... Moroni plows a field at the Whitmer farm and is seen about their sheds. Joseph told early church members Joseph Knight Sr., and Leman Copley, that he saw and conversed with “Moroni” as “an old man traveling to “Charzee.” Joseph said Moroni claimed to have a monkey in a box, and for “five coppers” he could see it."

http://www.mormonthink.com/grantpalmer/grant1.htm

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 hours ago, Dexter Eli said:

I don't think I ever called him a liar, and I understand that one can believe JS didn't literally meet with angels but that he also didn't lie about it.

I was really responding to cdowis and anyone else who defaults to JS as fraud or liar if his claims don't hold up.   

Quote

Maybe JS dreamed that he met with angels, and maybe those dreams were inspired by God, and therefore JS didn't lie but actually didn't meet with angels. In other words, when JS explained that he met with angels people may have interpreted that he really met them but perhaps his "visions" were dreams of visitations, not actual visitations. BUT, the church prides itself on having the direct authority from God by the laying of of hands and that JS brought about the end of the Great Apostasy by the restoration of the priesthood which can only be accomplished by the laying on of hands, and that Peter, James and John (and others) literally restored all the keys and priesthoods by physically visiting JS and ordaining him with all the necessary keys/powers.

You're really getting specific here, so I'll do my best to follow suit. I believe God works through all human beings (probably something like what we call the light of Christ), and therefore all institutions, religions, and traditions are of equal value in the eyes of God, similar to what we profess about God's love and care of individuals (I aknowledge that each organization/religions/tradition has their positive and negative aspects). I believe priesthood, as it works and inspires changes in people's lives, is a representation of God's influence in the Mormon tradition. I recognize that Mormonism has a specific heirarchy of priesthood, which I respect as a member of that community, and that heirarchy enables a significant and powerful unity in the church that I value. I believe priesthood keys are an organizational/hierarchical tool utilized in Mormonism to maintain order in stewardships and facilitate that unity.

Quote

IF this did not literally happen, then the church would lose its claim to be the true gospel restored. And if the church claims this literal ordaining is not necessary, then it also loses its claim as the only true church because then perhaps many inspired people throughout history received these keys from some method other than the laying on of hands.

I believe that JS's contributions to religion are significant and that his attraction to, revelation of, and interpretation of various teachings are inspiring whether you hold to JS' understanding of what he was doing or whether you take a less literal approach. I believe we can still work towards building Zion, the fulfillment of JS' vision and the vision of Judaism and Christianity, whether we believe we are equal partners with the rest of the world or if we believe we have an exceptional commission. As my worldview has widened and my knowledge of early Mormonism has deepened, I can't help but lean towards believing we are equal partners.

Quote

I can respect those who try to maintain their faith while admitting that the BOM is not literally true.

Thanks. I appreciate that.

Quote

But to do that, one would have to bend and twist and ultimately contradict so many teachings of the gospel and of the prophets that it seems untenable to me. 

You're right. Without some deliteralization in other areas as well as BOM historicity, it doesn't make any sense. It would be untenable. And yes, I am at odds with the traditional view in more ways than one.

Quote

And this has been preached by the modern prophets. I distinctly remember GBH in General Conference saying JS really did all the things he said he did or he is a complete fraud. Taking middle ground on JS is reasonable in many ways, but it's putting one at odds with JS, with current prophets, and with those who have left the church. It's an interesting niche where one is pretty much still believing in the gospel while disagreeing with the true blue mormons and those who have left the church. And if one wants to hold onto the core (Jesus Christ) without the details of the LDS version of Christianity, but just a belief in Jesus Christ, why not do just that?

I am deeply connected with Mormonism in so many ways. I can't exactly share verses from the Book of Mormon or the D&C at my local baptist church, can I? They don't appreciate the revealed word from JS last time I checked. There is also the question of my family and children. I'd like to give them the spiritual foundation that Mormonism gave me. Even in my darkest most agnostic times, I've always had a little bit of spiritual light to hang onto.

Quote

I'm not being snarky, I'm curious as to how you navigate between those who believe in the literal truth of BOM and church history, and those who disregarded all of it when they concluded it wasn't literally true. And have you ever considered letting all the details go and just believing in Christ? Why or why not? 

Let me emphasize I am asking with all respect. I am not advocating one position over another, I am just curious about your beliefs. 

Quite frankly, it's a lonely road. Just by way of illustration, I don't feel perfectly at home in this forum which is mostly traditional with some nuanced and critical views sprinkled in, but I also do not feel at home at the Mormon Discussinos forum, which is decidedly critical and largely dismissive of all aspects of Mormonism. After spending time lurking in both, I found that I much preferred discussion here. You're right. It's not easy, and I've simply picked the place I'm drawn to (both forum and religious tradition), despite the discomfort. Hopefully, my comments addressing the idea of going generally Christian above are sufficient, but let me know.

Thanks for the dialogue, Dexter!

Edited August 14, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[clarkgoble]

On 8/12/2017 at 8:17 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

I provided a nice video above, but am not sure that you were interested.

Unfortunately I've been without internet at home the past two weeks. That's kept me from doing a lot of stuff where I write my long posts. At work I just can't watch videos. My apologies. Plus my experience is that in videos people aren't as careful as in papers and typically don't provide sources in an useful fashion.

I'd looked at his Interpreter articles before. School is starting this week and contractors just finished our basement so I'm swamped moving the kids back into their rooms. But I'll try and read through the article links this week and comment.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Unfortunately I've been without internet at home the past two weeks. That's kept me from doing a lot of stuff where I write my long posts. At work I just can't watch videos. My apologies. Plus my experience is that in videos people aren't as careful as in papers and typically don't provide sources in an useful fashion.

I'd looked at his Interpreter articles before. School is starting this week and contractors just finished our basement so I'm swamped moving the kids back into their rooms. But I'll try and read through the article links this week and comment.

Carmack is systematic and thorough in both his videos and articles.  Hope you get back on the internet soon.

[Bobbieaware]

14 hours ago, Dexter Eli said:

This is what is so fascinating about the trend to argue that the church is true while admitting the BOM is not literally true. I am surprised by how many active mormons are willing to continue to believe the church is true while not believing the BOM is literally true. There seem to be a lot of roadblocks to being able to believe both of those things. 

Rather than have those who believe the Book of Mormon is fiction leave the Churh altogether, it's much more advantageous for the adversary of men's souls to have such people remain in the Church so that they might have the opportunity to slowly transform the Church into an apostate false religion from within. Similarly, the gnostics apostates of the meridian Christian Church were also busily at work trying to convince the members of that day that there was no literal Jesus Christ who shed his very real atoning blood for the sins of the world. Rather, they taught that the Being most supposed to be the literal Son of God on earth was actually a sort of apparition who only SEEMED TO BE a real flesh and blood human being who suffered and died for the sins of the world. In fact, these heretics believed no divine atoning sacrifice was necessary because salvation was gained through the acquisition of esoteric knowledge, not by believing in the spiritual efficacy of a "crude" and bloody divine sacrifice. 

So it appears one of most powerful devices in Satan's arsenal to destroy the true Church from within is to propagate the idea that the literal foundational events of Church history didn't actually occur but are nothing more than inspirational myths. If the ideas of the ahistorical Book of Mormon faction are tolerated and allowed to become normalized mainstream thinking within the Church, it's likely a humiliating major schism will eventually erupt in a struggle for supremacy. 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Bobbieaware