"Inspired Fiction" v. The Plates & The Witnesses

[hope_for_things]

36 minutes ago, blueglass said:

what are your thoughts on the relationship between doc&cov 17 where it speaks of 5 artifacts in vs1, but then says that you will only have a view of them  "by your faith" ?   , "that you shall obtain a view of them, even by that faith which was had by the prophets of old. " 3 And after that you have obtained faith, and have seen them with your eyes, you shall testify of them, by the power of God;"  Lucy when speaking of Joseph as a treasure seer says he was hired by Stowell "on account of having heard that he possessed certain keys by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye."  So for the first 5 spiritual witnesses, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris,  Lucy Harris, and Mary Whitmer this is a visionary experience of seeing the plates.  Then for the eight this could be seeing the plates that joseph manufactured (data points for convincing props include voree plates, Pb plates of Sacromonte, Kinderhook), then for the actual translation rather than the brown seer stone teleprompter tight translation, I see this more like Lehi in 1Nephi 1, being caught up to heaven and reading a heavenly book.   So in this sense it could be similar to Pearl Curran.  At John hopkins university they have a course on the production of books by heavenly angels.  Syllabus attached.  So I see going forward a combination of Pearl curran spontaneous composition with Ostler modern expansion.  As for the plates joseph manufactured and didn't really use other than to copy down charactors and send Martin Harris down to Philadelphia and meet with  Samuel Rafinesque and Caleb Atwater at the American philosophical society to get a book of abraham/ style Egyptian alphabet and grammar - David whitmer says in theDeseret Evening News, 16 August 1878, that they were not buried at Cumorah or returned to the angel but were buried in or near the miner's hill cave. http://archival.link/mormoncave/sources#david-whitmer  There may be more opportunity for an indiana jones style search to find the plates Joseph manufactured somewhere near there. 

 

spontaneous composition_HopkinsAS060203.pdf

I tend to think Joseph had something physical, but it wasn't necessarily in the form of plates, although the description Emma gave of feeling the pages and some others does make me wonder if there wasn't something with metal like sheets at some point in the process.  But other evidences make me think it was just sand or something heavy.  

You'd think that if there was some tangible artifact that someone would have found it by now.  Do you know if anyone is actively seeking to uncover artifacts around that miners hill cave?  Does the church own that land or is it held privately?  

[blueglass]

25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I tend to think Joseph had something physical, but it wasn't necessarily in the form of plates, although the description Emma gave of feeling the pages and some others does make me wonder if there wasn't something with metal like sheets at some point in the process.  But other evidences make me think it was just sand or something heavy.  

You'd think that if there was some tangible artifact that someone would have found it by now.  Do you know if anyone is actively seeking to uncover artifacts around that miners hill cave?  Does the church own that land or is it held privately?  

Maybe someone can help me find the quote -  I think Richard Bushman goes with Joseph possibly finding a "masonic artifact" of some kind.  So that's one alternate to the manufacturing of a set of plates, as Martin harris says, he doesn't think joseph had the money to buy the raw materials to produce a fake - or as Ann Taves would call a transubstantiation primer or Moriancumer glass stone from which to convert.  

Edited September 26, 2017 by blueglass

[champatsch]

3 hours ago, Nevo said:

That's a pretty sick burn!

I actually made quite a few posts last year laying out arguments against historicity. If you're interested, here are some of them: overview, Joseph's creativity, anti-Universalism, Indian origins, anachronistic theology, dependence on NT, Sermon on the Mount, Sermon on the Mount II, formation of the Bible, Nephi's bow, Arabia Felix, Bountiful, Nephi as scribe, Nephi as scribe (again),  Brass Plates, miracle.

And here are some older ones: republican ideology, falling into trances as though dead, anachronistic autobiography, scribalization of prophecy.

Obviously I didn't include all my respondents' counterarguments, but here's a quick summary:

Kevin Christensen: Barker, Kuhn, Nibley.
Mark Bukowski: Rorty, empirical nihilism.
Robert F. Smith: Only a yokel would think that way.
Rajah Manchou: It all happened in Malaysia!

Anyway, I'm in a better place now, so I don't really want to rehash everything, but suffice it to say that I don't think that EModE morphosyntax is the only data point worth paying attention to.

OK. I was thinking of your probable lack of philological study vis-a-vis the phrases, given the non-historical discussion and the obvious gap in their description, because of a decision to ignore a crucial structural dimension.

No, the morphosyntax isn't the only data point worth studying, it's just one of the most fundamental. Your study of the above is impressive and laudable, but it strikes me that it is weaker evidence than MS evidence, semantic usage in context, and morphosyntax, the latter largely subconsciously generated.

I suppose you think the above items encapsulate stronger evidence than the just mentioned items.  I submit that the Book of Mormon can also be read as a Reformation text, as Skousen pointed out in a 2015 presentation, touching on 10 items in an initial foray into the subject.

From what I can tell, your listed items constitute very complex evidence, a lot of it produced on the conscious level, and admitting of a range of diverse, valid argumentation. In contrast, one can straightforwardly define a number of dialectal features of Book of Mormon grammar. Boiled down to some essentials, one can accurately observe that Book of Mormon dialect is not King James dialect, or pseudo-biblical dialect, or 19c dialect, or 18c dialect. It is mostly 16c and 17c dialect.  It shares so many data points with usage found in those centuries, that it cannot be reasonably classified as a pseudo-archaic text.

Ultimately, one must be content with the weighing of evidence, that it has been judged properly.  Best wishes.

[Benjamin Seeker]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Wow, Case 1 & 2, I've never ran across before, thanks this is amazing.  I think you could also add the story of the Greek Psalter and the Kinderhook plates as well as statements Joseph made from time to time about his prowess to translate and understand other languages, even the work on the Adamic language is interesting when you think about all these language endeavors.  

I've said this before, but I've seen no evidence that Joseph ever understood or translated anything correctly from one language to another language.  

Yeah. I would add the Greek Psalter, the entire Book of Abraham, the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, and the Pure Language revelation.

I tried to stick to cut and dry cases that are the least controversial ones. I've heard the Greek Psalter story contested, but I forget on what grounds. The kinderhook plates have been shown to not be gift-of-translation transltion but a character-match translation using the above mentioned Grammar and Alphabet document but Don Bradley. I think this is a very important find because it both exonerates JS, at least partially, in terms of the kinderhook plate but it also shows the close relationship he felt to the Grammar and Alphabet document, which many apologists try to distance JS from.

In terms of correct translation, I know of several examples. The text of Abraham ch. 3 works in some Hebrew that is given correct translations, but that's after School of the prophet Hebrew study with Joshua Seixas. Another example is Rabbanah in Alma 18:13 which is good Aramaic apparently, though Masonry uses a very similar term and JS could have been exposed to. Lastly, all of Matthew Bowen's stuff on Hebrew wordplay in the BOM is pretty impressive. The Abish one is particularly impressive, and I've brought that one up before (don't have time to link to the interpreter paper right now). That one is also accompanied by a word play on Ammon's name, which Bowen doesn't point out, when Ammon twice says "I am a man." It's funny and works hand in hand with the Abish Hebrew word play. Pretty crazy stuff.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Maybe someone can help me find the quote -  I think Richard Bushman goes with Joseph possibly finding a "masonic artifact" of some kind.  So that's one alternate to the manufacturing of a set of plates, as Martin harris says, he doesn't think joseph had the money to buy the raw materials to produce a fake - or as Ann Taves would call a transubstantiation primer or Moriancumer glass stone from which to convert.  

Are you suggesting this is what Bushman believes or he includes it as an option?

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I've heard the Greek Psalter story contested, but I forget on what grounds.

Iirc, it is inconsistency (there were at least two different publications of the story) and lack of confirmation.  Iirc, there is nothing to indicate elsewhere he actually met JS but it has been a number of years since I researched this, so I may be confusing him with someone else.

[Rajah Manchou]

6 hours ago, Nevo said:

Rajah Manchou: It all happened in Malaysia!

As Clark stated above. There is a difference between something happening, and something possibly happening.

For the record, my claim is not that "it all happened in Malaysia!". Rather the items I have presented for discussion here over the years are meant to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon account is historically possible when it is not constrained to a limited geography somewhere in the Americas. Malaysia just happens to be the best example because for centuries the region was identified by Christians as an island that was inhabited by Israelites that departed Jerusalem in the 6th century BC.

Could you explain how these claims that are scattered through a number of texts dating as far back as the 2nd century AD are not historically plausible, or ahistorical?

For all the hardy har hars people dump on the Malay Model, it fully demonstrates that the Book of Mormon is possible. Whether it actually "happened in Malaysia" is irrelevant.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

4 hours ago, blueglass said:

As for the plates joseph manufactured and didn't really use other than to copy down charactors and send Martin Harris down to Philadelphia and meet with  Samuel Rafinesque and Caleb Atwater at the American philosophical society to get a book of abraham/ style Egyptian alphabet and grammar - David whitmer says in theDeseret Evening News, 16 August 1878, that they were not buried at Cumorah or returned to the angel but were buried in or near the miner's hill cave. http://archival.link/mormoncave/sources#david-whitmer  There may be more opportunity for an indiana jones style search to find the plates Joseph manufactured somewhere near there. 

Wait, do you have a source that Harris met with Rafinesque? That would be sooo interesting if true

Edited September 27, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[smac97]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I tend to think Joseph had something physical, but it wasn't necessarily in the form of plates, although the description Emma gave of feeling the pages and some others does make me wonder if there wasn't something with metal like sheets at some point in the process.  But other evidences make me think it was just sand or something heavy.  

So you discount the testimonies of the Witnesses out-of-hand?

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You'd think that if there was some tangible artifact that someone would have found it by now. 

Well, no, we wouldn't (p. 141):

Quote

After these {eight} witnesses returned to the house, the angel again made his appearance to Joseph, at which time Joseph delivered the plates into the angel's hands. 

The stories about the Hill Cumorah are . . . interesting, eh?

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Do you know if anyone is actively seeking to uncover artifacts around that miners hill cave?  Does the church own that land or is it held privately?  

Dunno.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Benjamin Seeker]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You'd think that if there was some tangible artifact that someone would have found it by now.  Do you know if anyone is actively seeking to uncover artifacts around that miners hill cave?  Does the church own that land or is it held privately?  

The church doesn't own the land. They were offered it a year or two ago and were not interested. I visited the property shortly after the most recent re-digging was done and I met the property owner. The hill and cave are just in someone's backyard (a large one), and they told me about how they had talked with the church about selling the land but it hadn't gone anywhere. The guy was still hopeful that something could come of it through BYU, which whoever he had talked to in he church had suggested. He said that if there wasn't any movement by the spring (we visited in the fall), that he'd rent a back hoe and tear the hill apart to see if he could find anything... I think it's been two years since then.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Nevo said:

Mark Bukowski: Rorty, empirical nihilism.

Nah, just antirealism 

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I tend to think Joseph had something physical, but it wasn't necessarily in the form of plates, although the description Emma gave of feeling the pages and some others does make me wonder if there wasn't something with metal like sheets at some point in the process.  But other evidences make me think it was just sand or something heavy.  

What other evidences make you think it was just sand or something heavy?

Glenn

[Gray]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I tend to think Joseph had something physical, but it wasn't necessarily in the form of plates, although the description Emma gave of feeling the pages and some others does make me wonder if there wasn't something with metal like sheets at some point in the process.  But other evidences make me think it was just sand or something heavy.  

You'd think that if there was some tangible artifact that someone would have found it by now.  Do you know if anyone is actively seeking to uncover artifacts around that miners hill cave?  Does the church own that land or is it held privately?  

“They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metalic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.”  —Emma Smith

It's hard for me to picture a material that would fit this description.

 

[stemelbow]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  I would also propose that these levels exist in both LDS and non-LDS paradigms.  It's just an all-around poor theory.

In the non-LDS paradigm, I quote agree.  The foundational claims of the LDS Church are pretty bold.  Audacious.  I can understand and respect feelings of incredulity and skepticism about them.  

But in the LDS paradigm, I think "a view of historicity" is pretty much the intended, go-to perspective on the Book of Mormon, and therefore not "problematic."

Interesting distinction.  I'm fine with that, though. 

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.

I don't think that is an accurate statement of the theory.  "The general story happened" is, I think, antithetical to the word "fiction" in "Inspired Fiction."

I suppose I'm taking it a bit differently.  If someone tells my story in life and gets a few things wrong, adds stories that never happened and exaggerated events to the point of them becoming something they never were, I suppose, such a telling could get the general story of me down, but also carry with it much fiction.  At some point it seems there must be a line that gets crossed.  I don't know if that's the case with the Book of Mormon or not.  But I see how it could be. 

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you have citations to "Inspired Fiction" theorists that espouse a yes-Lehi-and-his-family/descendants-were-historical-but-we're-still-going-to-call-the-Book-of-Mormon-"fiction" line of thought, I'd like to see them.

I don't know many who claim that label.  The ones Smoot mention are interesting, although one of them I don't think I've heard of.  I got the idea from Bokovoy's book, I believe, Authoring the Old Testament.  I may be off on the reference, I'll have to check later.  But he mentions that he can see that there were possibly a Lehi or Nephi walking around all that time ago, and yet the story we arrive at in the Book of Mormon may not be a good representation of what they experienced.  I may be a bit off, on this, but I think the idea worth consideration.  Seeing as the plates were not used in the translation and we have no way to verify the translation, it's quite possible the whole process was more about using exaggerated and fabricated stories to define doctrine.  I mean there are so many questions about the book it's hard not to think there's something fictional about it.  The whole language of EmodE found in it could suggest something really weird going on, wherein the book was translated by a party some many years before and then that translation was used to dictate to Joseph.  Or something.  IT's hard to confirm hardly any of it historically on some of these grounds.  To me this makes room for a more inspired fiction theory. 

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the theory is more foundational than that.  "Fiction," by definition, precludes a historical Lehi and Nephi and so on.

The Book of Mormon being "historical" (describing actual people and actual events) is, in my view, part and parcel of the "doctrines" found in the text.  For example, Jesus Christ only has value in our lives if He is a "historical" figure.  A fictional Christ has no power to create the earth, no power to atone, no power to save.

And yet the Bible is also rooted in historicity.  Again, if we reject the historicity of Jesus Christ, if we re-characterize him as an ahistorical fictional character with some good things to say, then what differentiates faith in such a being from faith in, say, Captain America or Atticus Finch?

I don't see how this works.  So we are supposed to ignore the word "fiction" in "inspired fiction?"

Which "Inspired Fiction" theorists are espousing the notion that Lehi was a historical person, but one about whom we have an imperfect historical record?  CFR, please.

Again, "historicity" pertains to much more than just the existence of the plates.  It pertains to their provenance and their content.

Except that he said "what he dictated" was "a story found on the plates."  That's what Joseph Smith said.  And the Three Witnesses (who claim that they were told this by no less than the voice of God).

I think you are trying to salvage the "Inspired Fiction" theory by ignoring its core characterization, which is a denial of "historicity": that there were no authentically ancient plates, no Lehi, no Nephites and Lamanites, no Mormon and Moroni, no angel Moroni, no angelic visitations to Joseph Smith, and Joseph Smith was lying/deluded/insane, and Joseph Smith fabricated fake plates and passed them off as ancient, and the Witnesses were all duped, and the Three Witnesses lied about or were collectively insane/deluded in their testimony, and on and on and on.

"Fiction" and "historicity" seem to be mutually exclusive attributes of the Book of Mormon.

Thanks,

-Smac

I certainly do struggle in labelling people and creating sides in all of this.  And inspired fiction is many thing to me.  And I'm not exactly fond of creating sides within Mormonism on this either.  To me there's room to imagine the events described by Joseph to be reality and still treat the bom as more modern than ancient.  To me there's room to suggest that there were some in the Americas that might loosely fit the bill in terms of what the Book fo Mormon describes and yet still consider the book scripture.  And there's room because all the points you've raised, it seems to me, assumes historicity.  It feels more complicated than that to me. 

Anyway, take care.  I'm not really some proponent of an inspired fiction as you are viewing it, so I can't really argue much for it on those grounds.  I just think it all feels rather complicated and see where these ideas might be coming from. 

[Glenn101]

What is the point in basing a religion or belief in a religion on the production of a book that claims itself to be historical and on the prophet that produced it as somehow being deluded into thinking he was translating something that he was not? How then would such an one who believes all that look at the even more, from a secular point of view, incredible story of the Resurrection? Is that just inspired fiction also?

Glenn

[clarkgoble]

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I tend to think Joseph had something physical, but it wasn't necessarily in the form of plates, although the description Emma gave of feeling the pages and some others does make me wonder if there wasn't something with metal like sheets at some point in the process.  But other evidences make me think it was just sand or something heavy.  

You'd think that if there was some tangible artifact that someone would have found it by now.  Do you know if anyone is actively seeking to uncover artifacts around that miners hill cave?  Does the church own that land or is it held privately?  

I think enough people saw or felt metallic sheets that it's hard to dismiss that. It's also hard to see how Joseph would have had access to such things. 

The Church doesn't own Miner's Hill unless they've bought it very recently. Here's a discussion of an amateur excavation from a couple of years ago. Lots of pictures of the cave. It's not terribly big.

I had a friend on a film crew on Cumorah and they found a cave there. But it appeared to have likely been from the prohibition era. I know there are photos of it around but I think the Church wanted it kept quiet so people wouldn't go drawing fanciful conspiracy theories.

Edited September 27, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Physics Guy]

The evidence for the plates that I've seen is real evidence, but it is not stronger evidence than I would expect a successful con artist to have produced. So I feel like a jury member who has heard a witness swear out an alibi for an alleged crime boss. Okay, there's a witness; but then there would be, wouldn't there?

One thing that seems actively dubious about the plates, on the other hand, is the apparent fact—according to the official Mormon story as I understand it—that the actual use of the plates was only to bolster Joseph Smith's reputation as a prophet, and not to convey revelation. That just makes me go Hmm.

I mean, if Smith actually read the plates themselves, then all the ancient effort of producing them, and the angelic effort of getting them to Smith, would at least make sense. If the point is just to convince a handful of Smith's acquaintances that he really had something, then why not just have Moroni appear to those folks and vouch for Smith's hat visions? Or why not let those people who were convinced by relic plates be convinced instead in the same way that has later worked for millions of Mormons, who have believed in Joseph Smith's prophethood without ever seeing gold plates?

On the fraud theory, in contrast, the physical plates serve an important purpose—or rather, it serves an important purpose to get people to accept that Smith did have plates. A physical gimmick is insurance against competition from copy-cats. 

(Establishing the expectation that a latter-day prophet ought to have plates makes it much easier for the first prophet to challenge any newcomers who may try to horn in on his territory. He can run up to them and demand that they show off their plates. If they have no plates to show, their stock with the public will fall, because the public will now expect plates. If a rival does show some plates, the first prophet can debunk the rival plates as no-one was ever allowed to do with his own plates, which are now safely inaccessible.)

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Book of Mormon being "historical" (describing actual people and actual events) is, in my view, part and parcel of the "doctrines" found in the text.  For example, Jesus Christ only has value in our lives if He is a "historical" figure.  A fictional Christ has no power to create the earth, no power to atone, no power to save.

I agree with you on most things and I can't say I disagree with what you say here.  But I think we need to remember that what counts is the fact that you BELIEVE in the historicity without evidence because that is the case.

This is a logical issue not a religious one.  I agree with you on the religious point.  If Christ did not come to earth, there is no atonement and our sins are not forgiven

You are right that a fictional Christ has no power to create or atone, but that is not the point.  The point is that the existence of the being we call "Christ" cannot be proven to exist scientifically- that the Son of God came to earth cannot be proven itself to BE "historical".  The human teacher and philosopher Jesus of Nazareth as a human teacher may or may not have existed or said what has been attributed to him - that is one question but the other is more important and cannot be shown by evidence that this Jesus was the Son of God come to earth to atone for our sins.

So the BELIEF that Christ lived and came to earth is not a historical statement, it is a BELIEF in an event which cannot be shown to be historical in principle. 

Reading your above quote, there is nothing you say there with which I disagree, strictly speaking but I just want to point out the implications.  The historicity as you point out is part of the DOCTRINES found in the text.

I have no problem with that but from a logical perspective, that is a circular argument.   It is tantamount to saying the book is historical because it claims to be historical and Jesus is the Christ because the book claims it is historical.

The book is presenting doctrines- true and alleging that it is in fact an historical document- true

But unless you first believe in the DOCTRINES, the historicity becomes irrelevant, because historicity is part of the DOCTRINE.

So it is not that it is "fictional" as in a made-up story.  That cannot be proven any better than saying it is historical and NOT a made up story.  No evidence really that would stand up in a court of law, either way.

So again historicity is a matter of belief in this case.   The belief takes precedence over the facts available.

Some people erroneously see that as "fiction" - it is not- but on the other hand it cannot on its own be said to be "historical " either absent a prior belief in the doctrine.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree with you on most things and I can't say I disagree with what you say here.  

Okay.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

But I think we need to remember that what counts is the fact that you BELIEVE in the historicity without evidence because that is the case.

Well, no.  I "believe in the historicity" of the Book of Mormon because of "evidence."  

• The statements of Joseph Smith are "evidence."
• The statements of the Witnesses are "evidence."
• The text of the Book of Mormon, including its internal geographic and chronological consistency and coherence, is "evidence."
• Royal Skousen's work on the manuscripts is "evidence."
• The inability of Joseph Smith to craft the text of the Book of Mormon (given the short period of time involved, his lack of education, etc.) is "evidence."
• The lack of viable alternative explanations for the text of the Book of Mormon is "evidence."
• Richard L. Anderson's compiled information about the character and experiences of the Witnesses is "evidence."
• Chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon (particularly Alma 36) is "evidence."
• The elements of ancient near east olive culture in Jacob 5 are "evidence."
• The spiritual impressions I have received, are, for me, "evidence."

And so on.

We can differ as to the probative value of these evidences, particularly as contrasted to "evidences" against the LDS Church's narrative about the origins of the Book of Mormon.  But to say that these things are not evidence at all?  Well no, I can't go along with that.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

This is a logical issue not a religious one.  

Logic and religion are not, in my view, discrete categories.  To the contrary, they inform and substantiate each other.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree with you on the religious point.  If Christ did not come to earth, there is no atonement and our sins are not forgiven

You are right that a fictional Christ has no power to create or atone, but that is not the point.  The point is that the existence of the being we call "Christ" cannot be proven to exist scientifically-

I quite agree.  But I am not speaking of "proving" any such thing.  I am instead speaking of "evidence."

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

that the Son of God came to earth cannot be proven itself to BE "historical".  

Agreed.  But again, I am not speaking of proof.  I am speaking of evidence.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The human teacher and philosopher Jesus of Nazareth as a human teacher may or may not have existed or said what has been attributed to him - that is one question but the other is more important and cannot be shown by evidence that this Jesus was the Son of God come to earth to atone for our sins.

I think we have differing understandings about the meaning of "evidence" and the use thereof.

I quite agree that discipleship is predicated principally on faith.  But we have things which inform that faith.  We have evidence.  The Church does not advocate "blind" faith.  To the contrary, the Church strongly encourages Church members to study the Gospel:

• “And thou shalt teach [the scriptures] diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” (Deut. 6:7)
• “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” (John 5:39)
• “Jesus answered [the Sadducees] and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matt. 22:29)
• “And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith.” (D&C 109:7)
• “Today we are troubled by evil-designing persons who [endeavor] … to destroy the testimonies of members of the Church, and many … are in danger because of lack of understanding and because they have not sought the guidance of the Spirit. … It is a commandment from the Lord that members … be diligent … and study … the fundamental truths of the gospel. … Every baptized person [can] have an abiding testimony. … but [it] … will grow dim and eventually disappear [without] … study, obedience, and diligent seeking to know and understand the truth” – Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith (1963)
• “We have never been encouraged to be blindly obedient; it is an intelligent obedience that characterizes members of the Church.” – L. Tom Perry

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So the BELIEF that Christ lived and came to earth is not a historical statement, it is a BELIEF in an event which cannot be shown to be historical in principle. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "cannot be shown."  I think the historical reality of the person described in the New Testament is rather hard to refute.

However, whether he was the Son of God is, I think, plainly beyond the scope of things which can "be shown" as a matter of historical fact.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I have no problem with that but from a logical perspective, that is a circular argument.   It is tantamount to saying the book is historical because it claims to be historical and Jesus is the Christ because the book claims it is historical.

Well, no.  I have never advocated such circular reasoning.  I specifically disclaim any such reasoning.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The book is presenting doctrines- true and alleging that it is in fact an historical document- true

But unless you first believe in the DOCTRINES, the historicity becomes irrelevant, because historicity is part of the DOCTRINE.

I don't follow.  If historicity "is part of the doctrine {of Christ}," then how is it "irrelevant?"  Irrelevant to what?

Quote

So it is not that it is "fictional" as in a made-up story.  

I cannot agree to that.  I think it is precisely "'fictional' as in a made-up story."

I will again clarify here that I am speaking of the "Inspired Fiction" theory as pretty much how it is advocated by Anthony Hutchison:

Quote

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should confess in faith that the Book of Mormon is the word of God but also abandon claims that it is a historical record of the ancient peoples of the Americas. We should accept that it is a work of scripture inspired by God in the same way that the Bible is inspired, but one that has as its human author Joseph Smith, Jr.

So "a made-up story" about made-up people and events ("fiction") which God "inspired" Joseph to write.  "Inspired fiction."

Quote

That cannot be proven any better than saying it is historical and NOT a made up story.  

Again, I am not speaking of "proof."  I am speaking of "evidence."

As it stands, and in my view, there is no coherent or probative "evidence" supporting the "Inspired Fiction" theory.  There is considerable evidence against it (see above).

Quote

No evidence really that would stand up in a court of law, either way.

I am not speaking of matters to be adjudicated in a court of law.  

There are all sorts of things that are beyond the province of the U.S. legal system.  Religious truth claims are, in fact, specifically and emphatically outside this scope.  There's even a legal concept which operates to bar judges from adjudicating such matters.  It's called the "Ecclesiastical Abstention" doctrine.

That does not, however, mean that we as individuals and families and groups are therefore precluded from applying some general principles of evidentiary analysis (some of which are used in courts of law) to evaluate the merits of the truth claims of the LDS Church.  For example, the statements from the Witnesses would need to include some assessment of the "character" of the Witnesses.  "Character evidence" is part and parcel of American jurisprudence.  It also has some application for us, as evidenced by Richard Lloyd Anderson's "Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses."  

Other principles also have some utility.  For example, privileging testimony from a percipient witness over that of a hearsay or second-hand witness is applied in courts, but also applies to evaluating the Book of Mormon.

Quote

So again historicity is a matter of belief in this case.  

Yes.  But that belief is, for me, informed.  Educated.  Based on the best information at hand.

I should clarify here that I don't think God's plan is for us to rely primarily on "textual evidences, archaeological evidences, etc." to gain a testimony.  These are fine and secondary or supplemental elements, but the foundation has to be built on the Spirit.  Note that Moroni 10:5 states that "by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."  Helaman 5:45 describes how "the Holy Spirit did come down from heaven, and did enter into their hearts, and they were filled as with fire, and they could speak forth marvelous words."  D&C 76:10 states that "[f]or by my Spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will--yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor entered into the heart of man."  Empirical evidence is fine up to a point, but there are aspects of the Restored Gospel which are only available through Revelation.  The foregoing verses establish the primacy of the Spirit over any other form of evidence.  

So yes, historicity is a matter of belief.  But it's informed belief.

Quote

The belief takes precedence over the facts available.

Some people erroneously see that as "fiction" - it is not- but on the other hand it cannot on its own be said to be "historical " either absent a prior belief in the doctrine.

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.

Well, no.  I "believe in the historicity" of the Book of Mormon because of "evidence."  

• The statements of Joseph Smith are "evidence."
• The statements of the Witnesses are "evidence."
• The text of the Book of Mormon, including its internal geographic and chronological consistency and coherence, is "evidence."
• Royal Skousen's work on the manuscripts is "evidence."
• The inability of Joseph Smith to craft the text of the Book of Mormon (given the short period of time involved, his lack of education, etc.) is "evidence."
• The lack of viable alternative explanations for the text of the Book of Mormon is "evidence."
• Richard L. Anderson's compiled information about the character and experiences of the Witnesses is "evidence."
• Chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon (particularly Alma 36) is "evidence."
• The elements of ancient near east olive culture in Jacob 5 are "evidence."
• The spiritual impressions I have received, are, for me, "evidence."

And so on.

We can differ as to the probative value of these evidences, particularly as contrasted to "evidences" against the LDS Church's narrative about the origins of the Book of Mormon.  But to say that these things are not evidence at all?  Well no, I can't go along with that.

Logic and religion are not, in my view, discrete categories.  To the contrary, they inform and substantiate each other.

I quite agree.  But I am not speaking of "proving" any such thing.  I am instead speaking of "evidence."

Agreed.  But again, I am not speaking of proof.  I am speaking of evidence.

I think we have differing understandings about the meaning of "evidence" and the use thereof.

I quite agree that discipleship is predicated principally on faith.  But we have things which inform that faith.  We have evidence.  The Church does not advocate "blind" faith.  To the contrary, the Church strongly encourages Church members to study the Gospel:

• “And thou shalt teach [the scriptures] diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” (Deut. 6:7)
• “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” (John 5:39)
• “Jesus answered [the Sadducees] and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matt. 22:29)
• “And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith.” (D&C 109:7)
• “Today we are troubled by evil-designing persons who [endeavor] … to destroy the testimonies of members of the Church, and many … are in danger because of lack of understanding and because they have not sought the guidance of the Spirit. … It is a commandment from the Lord that members … be diligent … and study … the fundamental truths of the gospel. … Every baptized person [can] have an abiding testimony. … but [it] … will grow dim and eventually disappear [without] … study, obedience, and diligent seeking to know and understand the truth” – Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith (1963)
• “We have never been encouraged to be blindly obedient; it is an intelligent obedience that characterizes members of the Church.” – L. Tom Perry

I'm not sure what you mean by "cannot be shown."  I think the historical reality of the person described in the New Testament is rather hard to refute.

However, whether he was the Son of God is, I think, plainly beyond the scope of things which can "be shown" as a matter of historical fact.

Well, no.  I have never advocated such circular reasoning.  I specifically disclaim any such reasoning.

I don't follow.  If historicity "is part of the doctrine {of Christ}," then how is it "irrelevant?"  Irrelevant to what?

I cannot agree to that.  I think it is precisely "'fictional' as in a made-up story."

I will again clarify here that I am speaking of the "Inspired Fiction" theory as pretty much how it is advocated by Anthony Hutchison:

So "a made-up story" about made-up people and events ("fiction") which God "inspired" Joseph to write.  "Inspired fiction."

Again, I am not speaking of "proof."  I am speaking of "evidence."

As it stands, and in my view, there is no coherent or probative "evidence" supporting the "Inspired Fiction" theory.  There is considerable evidence against it (see above).

I am not speaking of matters to be adjudicated in a court of law.  

There are all sorts of things that are beyond the province of the U.S. legal system.  Religious truth claims are, in fact, specifically and emphatically outside this scope.  There's even a legal concept which operates to bar judges from adjudicating such matters.  It's called the "Ecclesiastical Abstention" doctrine.

That does not, however, mean that we as individuals and families and groups are therefore precluded from applying some general principles of evidentiary analysis (some of which are used in courts of law) to evaluate the merits of the truth claims of the LDS Church.  For example, the statements from the Witnesses would need to include some assessment of the "character" of the Witnesses.  "Character evidence" is part and parcel of American jurisprudence.  It also has some application for us, as evidenced by Richard Lloyd Anderson's "Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses."  

Other principles also have some utility.  For example, privileging testimony from a percipient witness over that of a hearsay or second-hand witness is applied in courts, but also applies to evaluating the Book of Mormon.

Yes.  But that belief is, for me, informed.  Educated.  Based on the best information at hand.

I should clarify here that I don't think God's plan is for us to rely primarily on "textual evidences, archaeological evidences, etc." to gain a testimony.  These are fine and secondary or supplemental elements, but the foundation has to be built on the Spirit.  Note that Moroni 10:5 states that "by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."  Helaman 5:45 describes how "the Holy Spirit did come down from heaven, and did enter into their hearts, and they were filled as with fire, and they could speak forth marvelous words."  D&C 76:10 states that "[f]or by my Spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will--yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor entered into the heart of man."  Empirical evidence is fine up to a point, but there are aspects of the Restored Gospel which are only available through Revelation.  The foregoing verses establish the primacy of the Spirit over any other form of evidence.  

So yes, historicity is a matter of belief.  But it's informed belief.

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

So based on the cited evidence alone here, you do or would in principle contribute a tenth of your income annually to the church, absent a testimony by the spirit?

And you find that to be a purely rational choice for mankind in general to follow?

Absent the spirit, the evidence is sufficient to join the church, angels, gold plates and all ?

And all this while admitting that absent the Holy Spirit we have insufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus was the Christ the son of the Living God and Redeemer?

Doesn't that admission itself justify the notion that evidence from the spirit alone is sufficient evidence for one to become Christian or LDS?

You have already admitted that.

That was my sole point. Based on historical and empirical evidence available alone I believe joining the church would not be rationally justified. It is the spirit that makes the difference, and spiritual evidence is sufficient in making spiritual decisions.

Edited September 27, 2017 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So it is not that it is "fictional" as in a made-up story.  That cannot be proven any better than saying it is historical and NOT a made up story.  No evidence really that would stand up in a court of law, either way.

So again historicity is a matter of belief in this case.   The belief takes precedence over the facts available.

Some people erroneously see that as "fiction" - it is not- but on the other hand it cannot on its own be said to be "historical " either absent a prior belief in the doctrine.

Not to be nitpicky Mark, which you of all people know I never am  , but I believe it can be proven better in a court of law to say that the NT for instance is historical than it is fiction. The evidence for its status of fiction is really quite slim. Indeed, the eminent Harvard law professor and dean, Simon Greenleaf addressed this very issue in a book, which process convinced himself to become Christian. I provide a link to a free copy here and highly recommend it as a read to skeptics:

https://archive.org/details/testimonyevange00tiscgoog

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Not to be nitpicky Mark, which you of all people know I never am  , but I believe it can be proven better in a court of law to say that the NT for instance is historical than it is fiction. The evidence for its status of fiction is really quite slim. Indeed, the eminent Harvard law professor and dean, Simon Greenleaf addressed this very issue in a book, which process convinced himself to become Christian. I provide a link to a free copy here and highly recommend it as a read to skeptics:

https://archive.org/details/testimonyevange00tiscgoog

You are missing the point.  I will stipulate to that- no problem.  I did not get a chance to read your reference

But where is the extra-spiritual evidence that Jesus died for your sins?

How far does the fact that Jerusalem exists get you toward the idea that "Christianity is true?"

It doesn't.  

The bible OR the BOM could be absolutely historically accurate in every single detail, talking donkeys, sun stopping etc and still not provide justification for the belief that the death of one human can take away the sins of all who have lived.

It is a totally preposterous notion for the naturally inclined.  That is precisely why it is so important to use postmodernists to show that in a religious context, religious experience justifies religious belief

Going after historical evidence is barking up the wrong tree.  Yes the events need to have "really happened" for the RELIGIOUS, and SUPERNATURAL message to be justifiable but such evidence is hardly sufficient in itself to justify supernatural beliefs

And yes I know that to God nothing in Mormon theology is "supernatural" but for us it appears to be, as a smartphone would appear in 1492.

I don't know the science of the atonement do you?  For us it is "supernatural" and without a natural explanation- for now.  And since we are alive NOW that makes it supernatural for all practical purposes.

Edited September 28, 2017 by mfbukowski

[smac97]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So based on the cited evidence alone here, you do or would in principle contribute a tenth of your income annually to the church, absent a testimony by the spirit?

And you find that to be a purely rational choice for mankind in general to follow?

Absent the spirit, the evidence is sufficient to join the church, angels, gold plates and all ?

And all this while admitting that absent the Holy Spirit we have insufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus was the Christ the son of the Living God and Redeemer?

Doesn't that admission itself justify the notion that evidence from the spirit alone is sufficient evidence for one to become Christian or LDS?

You have already admitted that.

That was my sole point. Based on historical and empirical evidence available alone I believe joining the church would not be rationally justified. It is the spirit that makes the difference, and spiritual evidence is sufficient in making spiritual decisions.

I agree with all of the foregoing items.  Sounds like we are substantively in agreement.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Benjamin McGuire]

Let me try a different route to beating my dead horse ...

I think we struggle because of a language problem here. Being historical is very different from having historicity.

I raised this a little bit earlier - the difference between historicity and verisimilitude:

Historicity: Historicity is the historical actuality of persons and events, meaning the quality of being part of history as opposed to being a historical myth, legend, or fiction. Historicity focuses on the truth value of knowledge claims about the past (denoting
historical actuality, authenticity, and factuality.) The historicity of a claim about the past is its factual status, historical quality or authenticity based on fact. The characteristic of having appeared or developed in history (ideas, practices, institutions...), as opposed to being natural or universal.

Verisimilitude: Verisimilitude is a philosophical concept that distinguishes between the truth and the falsity of assertions and hypotheses. The problem of verisimilitude is the problem of articulating what it takes for one false theory to be closer to the truth than another false theory. The property of seeming true, of resembling reality; resemblance to reality, realism. A statement which merely appears to be true.

We have several problems that tend to conflate these two issues - and this is true especially for the Book of Mormon where it isn't true so much of the Bible (more on that in a moment). We have the suggestion that because of the nature of its production, evidence for the Book of Mormon being verisimilar is effectively evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon (or rather, that it would be impossible for the Book of Mormon to be verisimilar without it also having historicity). This argument is centered in the production and not in the narrative in the book. From my perspective, there is this gap between verisimilitude and historicity - and this argument doesn't really succeed in crossing that gap.

The argument is best represented of course, in the question of the angel Moroni, appearing to Joseph Smith. The assertion is that the Moroni that appears to Joseph Smith is also the historical figure of the Moroni in the Book of Mormon and that this argues for historicity. This, along with the gold plates and the artifacts buried with them constitute what might be the real evidence for at least a limited historicity of the text of the Book of Mormon (but, of course, we don't actually have any of this anymore to look at, and contemporary accounts of the discovery narrative to the extent that they exist become interpreted very quickly). So our discussions about historicity use this label in a way that isn't always very appropriate. And our discussions are usually more about realism (verisimilitude) than they are about historicity.

This is why I brought up the earlier point I made about the way that we read. If we read the Book of Mormon believing that the book is a work of historicity, we interact with the text very differently than if we read the Book of Mormon as not having historicity. There is a huge difference (as I noted) between reading Nephi (at the beginning) as a self expression of the writing author Nephi, involving the intentions of this historical Nephi, and his desires, than there is in reading Nephi as a fictional embodiment of the desires and intentions of a modern author. While this seems simple enough, it is as radical a difference as the illustration of reading Cinderella that I mentioned before. The assumption of real historicity creates readings like that of Brant Gardner's - which then extends the argument for verisimilitude. If we assume belief, and read it that way, does it consequently match well with the context in which we place it?

Further, when we deal with historicity (at least in our modern concerns of historicity) it isn't just about what really happened, but about how we (as the modern observers) can come to know what really happened. This is where we again run into problems with the Book of Mormon, because our approach to how we can come to know what really happened (at least as far as it becomes a question of faith) is not a question involving history and facts as much as it is a personal revelatory encounter with divinity. And then we attempt to express the witness that comes through this encounter back on to the text as a way of defending its historicity - and there is a gap here as well.

And so this problem comes back to us in terms of the text - when we speak of historicity, we speak of an idea that is particularly modern in nature and in application. To what extent is the Book of Mormon presented as a real history of real events? And to what extent is the Book of Mormon an interpretation of a potentially real history or real events? Too often, when we don't use the sort of processes we normally engage in when we look at historicity (when we don't follow models produced by historians and perhaps the range of related fields in archaeology, sociology, anthropology, and so on) then we inevitably end up reading the text of the Book of Mormon through a lens that produces anything but a real factual history. And so because we take this alternate (and perhaps inappropriate) route towards the historicity of the Book of Mormon, we inevitably end up misunderstanding the text in very profound ways.

Now we might argue (understandably) that this doesn't change the very basic ideas that Nephi was a real person, and that Moroni was a real person, and that because they were real people, that real things happened to them, which constituted their history. But, this isn't something that creates an understanding of real historicity in the text. At best, it creates that belief that allows us to read the text in an appropriate way (which is important). But, then we inevitably carry a whole set of baggage of interpretations of the text. And we create problems if we assert that our interpretations or understandings are in fact representative of that historicity.

And then we have the problem that much of the Book of Mormon is written long after the events it described took place - and inevitably they are interpreted (with all of the same problems that I mention for us in our interpretations). Some of the events described in this later written text are not (at least not in the sense that we use the term) factual, or historical. Some of it is simply a matter of what details are included and which are not.

When we look at comments like that made by RevTestament:

Quote

I believe it can be proven better in a court of law to say that the NT for instance is historical than it is fiction.

I don't disagree. But this is the question of being "historical" which in the language that I use is it's verisimilitude, not it's historicity. When we get to the level of historicity, we inevitably run into questions like the search for the historical Jesus (that is, assuming that Jesus was a real person, exactly what sort of person was he, and what sort of things did he actually do). We are interested in turning from this issue of verisimilitude and toward this question of historicity, but we need to do so appropriately. And while we like the idea that the text having verisimilitude is an adequate substitute for historicity, it really is not an adequate substitute. And I think we end up creating future problems for ourselves when we assert that the experiences that come with the production of the Book of Mormon and its translation from the Gold Plates are in fact direct evidence of some sort for the historicity of the Book of Mormon text.

And finally, on top of this, we have the challenge that comes with a more nuanced view of the text. It's quite possible to understand that with it's literary characteristics, a text can take liberties with what me might consider history (as a modern concern). And in this way, some elements of the text may be read as having more potential historicity than others. This is why decisions on what is included (as opposed to what is not) when the text is originally assembled can be seen as impacting this sort of question. And why a sort of blanket understanding of historicity with the Book of Mormon is a challenge, just as it is with the Biblical text.

It might be better to simply refer to the historical nature of the text of the Book of Mormon, and the necessity to understand the text as an authentic historical work, rather than on insisting on historicity, for which real evidence is extremely limited.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And I think we end up creating future problems for ourselves when we assert that the experiences that come with the production of the Book of Mormon and its translation from the Gold Plates are in fact direct evidence of some sort for the historicity of the Book of Mormon text.

 

This is, in a far more clumsy way, what I was attempted to explain myself.  your whole post was really good and helpful, btw.